Animal welfare in the EU : closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation. Special report No 31, 2018.
Date: 2019-02-01
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European standard, animal health, animal production, animal welfare, audit, common agricultural policy, farm animal, livestock farming, report, slaughter of animals, transport of animals

EN 

2018 

NO 31

Special Report  Animal welfare in the EU: 
closing the gap between 
ambitious goals and 
practical implementation

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 

 
 
 
 
 
AUDIT TEAM 

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes, or of 
management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. The ECA selects and designs these audit 
tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of 
income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest. 

This performance audit was carried out by Audit Chamber I Sustainable use of natural resources, 
headed by ECA Member Nikolaos Milionis. The audit was led by ECA Member Janusz Wojciechowski, 
supported by Kinga Wiśniewska-Danek, Head of Private Office and Katarzyna Radecka-Moroz, Private 
Office Attaché; Colm Friel, Principal Manager; Diana Voinea, Head of Task; Paulo Oliveira and Lucia 
Roșca, Deputy Heads of Task; Xavier Demarche, Małgorzata Frydel, Michela Lanzutti, Joachim Otto and 
Maciej Szymura, Auditors. Fiona Urquhart provided linguistic support. 

From left to right: Xavier Demarche, Kinga Wiśniewska-Danek, Joachim Otto, Janusz Wojciechowski, 
Colm Friel, Diana Voinea, Lucia Roșca. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Glossary and abbreviations 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

Audit scope and approach 

Observations 

The Commission has concluded the second EU Strategy for animal welfare, 
but it has not assessed its impact 

The Commission and the Member States reported significant progress in 
applying EU standards 

Member States took a long time to address certain recommendations and 
some issues are still outstanding 

Member States’ management of their official inspection systems generally 
ensures consistency but there are some weaknesses in the control and 
audit systems 

Member States make limited use of the Common Agricultural Policy tools to 
address animal welfare objectives 

Limited exchange of results between official inspections and cross-
compliance checks in the Member States and weaknesses in the 
application of penalties 

Rural development: few incentives for improving animal welfare and 
cost-effectiveness is not guaranteed 

Conclusions and recommendations 

2 

Paragraph 

I - IX 

1 - 19 

20 - 27 

28 - 95 

28 - 33 

34 - 40 

41 - 46 

47 - 63 

64 - 95 

65 - 76 

77 - 95 

96 - 104 

Annex I - Overview of actions planned in the EU animal welfare strategy 2012-2015 

Annex II - Overview of information included in the farm inspection reports submitted to the 

Commission by the audited Member States 

Annex III - Member States’ checks and data on slaughter without stunning 

 
 
 
 
Annex IV - Cross-compliance checks in the Member States visited 

Replies of the Commission 

3 

 
 
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS 

4 

Broilers: 

CAP: 

CMES: 

Chickens kept for meat production 

Common Agricultural Policy 

EU Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for rural 
development measures  

Cross-compliance 
checks:  

Checks aimed at verifying the respect of cross-compliance 
obligations, in accordance with Regulations (EU) 
No 1306/2013, 809/2014 and 640/2014. 

DG AGRI:  

DG SANTE: 

EFSA:  

Official inspections: 

OIE: 

European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture 
and Rural Development 

European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and 
Food Safety 

European Food Safety Authority — European Union agency 
that provides independent scientific advice and communicates 
on existing and emerging risks associated with the food chain 

Term used throughout the report to refer to controls and 
inspections performed at Member State level (e.g. by 
veterinary services) to verify the correct application of 
European Union animal welfare rules, in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. 

World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des 
Épizooties) - an intergovernmental organisation with 
181 Member Countries. It develops internationally recognised 
animal health and welfare standards. 

Pig tail docking: 

Procedure of cutting of pig tails in order to reduce tail-biting. 

RDP: 

SMR:  

TRACES: 

Rural development programme 

Statutory management requirements — form part of cross-
compliance and are laid down in a number of European Union 
directives and regulations. They concern public health, animal 
and plant health, identification and registration of animals, 
environment and animal welfare. 

Trade Control and Expert System — Commission’s multilingual 
online management tool for all sanitary requirements on intra-
EU trade and importation of animals, semen and embryos, 
food, feed and plants. 

 
 
5 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I.  The EU has some of the world’s highest regulatory animal welfare standards, which 

include general requirements on the rearing, transport and slaughter of farm animals and 

specific requirements for certain species. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides an 

opportunity to contribute to farmers’ awareness of their legal obligations (through cross-

compliance, which links their CAP payments to compliance with minimum requirements) 

and to incentivise farmers to pursue higher standards (through financial support granted 

under the rural development policy).  

II.  EU citizens are increasingly concerned about farming’s effects on animal welfare, and the 

interrelated impact on public and animal health. The Commission has produced strategy 

documents to provide a framework for its actions in this area. The latest EU strategy covered 

the period from 2012 to 2015. 

III.  The audit examined the welfare of farm animals and the overall implementation of the 

latest EU strategy, focusing on its two key objectives: to achieve compliance with the 

minimum standards and to optimise synergies with the CAP. We concluded that EU actions 

to improve animal welfare were successful in some areas, but there are still some 

weaknesses in compliance with minimum standards, there is room to improve coordination 

with cross-compliance checks, and the financial resources of the CAP could be better used to 

promote higher animal welfare standards. 

IV.  The findings of our audit showed that the Commission has used both guidance and 

enforcement to achieve compliance in the Member States. Its actions have been successful 

in important areas, most notably on the group housing of sows and the ban on unenriched 

cages that do not allow laying hens to express their natural behaviour. The Commission and 

the Member States worked on guidelines to facilitate the understanding and consistent 

application of legislative requirements and they have distributed them widely. The Member 

States we visited generally took action to address Commission audit recommendations.  

V.  However, weaknesses still persisted in some areas related to welfare issues on the farm 

(in particular, the routine tail docking of pigs), during transport (compliance with rules on 

 
 
6 

long distance transport and the transport of unfit animals) and at slaughter (use of the 

derogation for slaughter without stunning and inadequate stunning procedures).  

The Member States we visited took a long time to address some of the recommendations 

made by the Commission following its audits.  

VI.  The Member States’ official control systems are a key factor in ensuring that animal 

welfare standards are properly enforced. We found good practices in this area, in particular 

with regard to the consistency of official inspections, but also a need to focus on areas and 

business operators with a higher risk of non-compliance. Furthermore, Member States could 

make better use of the information gained from internal audits and complaints to improve 

their management of the animal welfare policy.  

VII. The Member States have generally put in place appropriate arrangements for cross-

compliance checks related to animal welfare. However, there is scope for improving 

coordination with official inspections on animal welfare. Furthermore, there were cases 

where the cross-compliance penalties applied by Paying Agencies were not proportionate to 

the seriousness of the irregularities. 

VIII. 

The objective of promoting animal welfare is a rural development priority for the 

2014-2020 period and we found good examples of actions beneficial for animals in the 

Member States visited. However, the “Animal Welfare” measure was not widely used. There 

were certain weaknesses in the cost-effectiveness of the measure and Member States rarely 

used the opportunity to support animal welfare through other rural development measures.  

IX.  We make recommendations to the Commission aimed at improving their management 

of the animal welfare policy. Our recommendations cover the strategic framework for 

animal welfare, more effective enforcement and guidance to achieve compliance, actions to 

strengthen the links between the cross-compliance system and animal welfare and action to 

better address animal welfare objectives through the rural development policy. 

 
 
7 

INTRODUCTION 

Animal welfare: definition and importance in the EU 

1.  The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) provided the following definition of 

good animal welfare in 2008: “An animal is in a good state of welfare, if it is healthy, 

comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate [natural] behaviour, and if it is not 

suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress.” The concept of animal 

welfare is enshrined in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

(TFEU), which recognises animals as sentient beings. 

2.  According to a European Parliament study1, there are an estimated 4.5 billion chickens, 

egg-laying hens and turkeys in the EU, and 330 million cattle, pigs, goats and sheep. Based 

on information from an animal welfare organisation, an estimated 0.25 million horses are 

slaughtered annually for meat2. 

3.  Knowledge of animal welfare has increased rapidly in recent years and has been the 

subject of considerable media attention. The European Parliament adopted two resolutions 

(in 2010 and 2015) on the EU animal welfare policy3. Action in the EU on animal welfare 

stems from four main sources, each with its own control mechanism (see Figure 1). 

1  

2  

3  

European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, “Animal 
Welfare in the European Union”, Brussels, 2017.  

Humane Society International, “Facts and figures on the EU horsemeat trade”, 2014.  

European Parliament resolution of 5 May 2010 on evaluation and assessment of the Animal 
Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010 (2009/2202(INI)) and European Parliament resolution of 
26 November 2015 on a new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 (2015/2957(RSP)). 

 
 
                                                      
8 

Figure 1 – Actions in the EU with an impact on animal welfare 

Scientific 
research

Cross-compliance 
rules

Cross - compliance 
checks

Official 
inspections

EU and national 
animal welfare 
legislation

Welfare of farm 
animals

Rural 
development 
grants

Checks on 
commitments

Private quality 
or labelling 
schemes

Voluntary 
certification

Source: ECA. 

4.  The EU’s animal welfare legislation aims to improve the quality of animals' lives, while 

also meeting citizens' expectations and market demands, by setting minimum standards. It is 

widely recognised that the EU has some of the world’s highest animal welfare standards4. 

Most of these standards concern farm animals (on the farm, during transport and at 

slaughter), while legislation also covers wildlife, laboratory animals and pets. As shown in 

Figure 2, the first EU animal welfare legislation was introduced over 40 years ago, and has 

been updated several times. Member States may adopt stricter rules, if they are compatible 

with EU legislation. For example, 13 Member States have adopted additional national 

measures on slaughter.  

4  

Studies on this topic include the following: FAO, “Review of animal welfare legislation in the 
beef, pork, and poultry industries”, Rome, 2014; EconWelfare project, FiBL, “Overview of animal 
welfare standards and initiatives in selected EU and third countries”, Switzerland, 2010; 
European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, “Comparative 
analysis of EU standards in food safety, environment, animal welfare and other non-trade 
concerns with some selected countries”, Brussels, 2012. 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 2 – Key EU legislation on the welfare of farm animals 

9 

1974

Protection of animals 
in slaughterhouses 
(updated in 1993 and 
2013)

1986

Protection of laying 
hens (updated in 
1999)

1998

General protection of 
all farm animals 

Protection of animals 
during transport 
(updated in 2005)

1977

Protection of calves 
and pigs 
(consolidated in 
2008)

1991

Source: ECA. 

 
 
 
 
10 

5.  Member States are responsible for applying EU animal welfare rules at national level, 

including official inspections5, while the European Commission (DG SANTE) is responsible for 

ensuring that Member States implement EU legislation properly. The European Food Safety 

Authority is responsible for providing relevant scientific advice to the Commission. Member 

States report to the Commission annually on the results of their animal welfare inspections 

on farms and during transport. The Commission may take legal action against Member 

States that fail to correctly transpose and implement the EU legislation. 

Animal welfare and the Common Agricultural Policy 

6.  The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) contributes to animal welfare objectives through 

cross-compliance (linking most CAP payments to farmers to meeting minimum 

requirements) and by financing activities and projects for animal welfare (see Figure 3).  

5  

Performed in accordance with 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). The legislation does not require a minimum control rate for animal welfare 
inspections. 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3 – CAP instruments and the link with animal welfare legislation 

11 

European 
Agricultural 
Fund for Rural 
Development

Rural development: 
funds for going 
beyond the baseline 
requirements

Improved animal welfare standards

Direct CAP 
payments

Cross-compliance: 
respecting the minimum 
legal requirements

Baseline animal welfare standards
 Directives for the protection of calves and pigs
 Directive for the protection of farm animals

Source: ECA. 

7.  Cross-compliance is a mechanism that links most CAP payments6 (around €46 billion in 

2016)7 to compliance with a series of rules on the environment, maintaining land in good 

agricultural condition, animal welfare, and public, animal and plant health. It does not apply 

6  

Direct payments under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support 
schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608); 
payments for restructuring and conversion of vineyards and green harvesting under Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 671) and area related payments and animal welfare payments under the rural 
development Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487).  

7  

DG AGRI, 2016 Annual activity report. 

 
 
 
                                                      
12 

to small farmers8, who represent about 40 % of the total number of EU farmers9. Farmers 

who fail to comply with these standards and requirements can have their CAP payments 

reduced by 1 % to 5 %, or more if the non-compliance is intentional. In exceptional cases, the 

authorities may exclude farmers from aid schemes.  

8.  The cross-compliance system does not cover all the legislative requirements on animal 

welfare: it includes provisions to protect calves and pigs, and others setting general 

requirements for all farm animals10.  

9. 

Livestock farmers in sectors that do not typically receive the relevant CAP payments 

(most EU poultry farms and many pig farms in certain Member States) are by definition not 

covered by this penalty system. At EU level11, the general cross-compliance requirements for 

animal welfare cover about 55 % of all EU farms with livestock, while the specific Directive 

requirements for the protection of pigs cover about 65 % of pig farms.  

10.  Member States carry out on-the-spot checks to verify if the farmers are meeting the 

cross-compliance requirements. These checks must cover at least 1 % of CAP beneficiaries. 

The Commission (DG AGRI) performs audits to check if Member States have adequate 

control systems for cross-compliance. 

11.  The rural development policy can also address animal welfare objectives, for example 

through training courses or by providing financial compensation for farmers who apply 

8  

Recital 57 and Article 92 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the 
common agricultural policy (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549). Small farmers are however not 
exempt from complying with the applicable animal welfare legislation and are subject to official 
inspections verifying their compliance with that legislation. 

9 

SWD(2016) 218 final of 22.6.2016, “Review of greening after one year”. 

10   As defined in Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 

11 

Sources: cross-compliance control statistics for 2016 for the population subject to cross-
compliance; Eurostat data for 2013 for the total number of farms with livestock and total 
number of farms with pigs. The coverage of pig farms varies widely between Member States, 
ranging from 7 % of the pig farms in Slovakia to almost 100 % of the pig farms in Belgium, 
Germany and Luxembourg. There is no Eurostat data on the number of farms rearing calves. 

 
 
                                                      
13 

higher animal welfare standards than those required by EU and national legislation or 

normal practice. The Member States decide which measures to activate based on their 

needs. The Commission (DG AGRI) approves Member States’ rural development 

programmes. Based on the approved programmes, Member States then select the 

beneficiaries that will receive funding.  

12.  The largest direct source of EU funding for animal welfare activities is the rural 

development measure “animal welfare payments” (measure 14), which provides support for 

high standards of animal husbandry going beyond the relevant mandatory standards12. For 

the 2014-2020 period, 18 Member States allocated €1.5 billion to this measure (1.5 % of the 

total planned expenditure for all measures)13. Figure 4 shows planned and actual 

expenditure for this measure in the programming period 2014-2020. These funds are 

supplemented by national spending, which brings the total budget for this measure to 

almost €2.5 billion. 

12 

13  

Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. 

In the previous programming period (2007-2013), 15 Member States spent €1 billion for the 
animal welfare measure. 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 4 – EU rural development expenditure for “animal welfare” measure 14 in the 

programming period 2014–2020 (in million euro) 

Programmed expenditure at 18.06.2018

Realised expenditure at 31.12.2017

14 

Romania

Finland

Italy

Austria

Hungary

Germany

Slovakia

Czech Republic

Sweden

Bulgaria

Estonia

Ireland

Slovenia

Spain

Croatia

Greece

Cyprus

United Kingdom

Romania
29.0 %

Finland
12.7 %

The other 
Member 
States
31.3 %

Hungary
7.5 %

Italy
12.0 %

Austria
7.5 %

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Source: ECA, based on information from DG AGRI. 

Animal welfare and economic interests 

13.  The EU’s livestock sector represents 45 % of its total agricultural activity. It generates an 

output of €168 billion annually and provides around 4 million jobs14. Linked sectors (milk and 

meat processing, feed for livestock) have an annual turnover of approximately €400 billion. 

The consistent application of animal welfare standards has an impact on the level playing 

field in these sectors.  

14   Animal Task Force, “Why is European animal production important today? Facts and figures”, 

2017. 

 
 
 
                                                      
15 

14.  Applying certain animal welfare standards (for example, providing minimum space to 

calves) imposes costs on business operators. In 2010 DG SANTE estimated15 these costs at 

2 % of farm output, but also concluded that the benefits of higher animal welfare standards 

are enhanced productivity, product quality and business image. 

15.  According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)16, food safety is indirectly 

affected by the welfare of farmed animals, due to the close links between animal welfare, 

animal health and food-borne diseases. Poor welfare can lead to increased susceptibility to 

disease and higher mortality. If there is a risk to public health, food safety inspectors will not 

approve the meat for human consumption, leading to financial losses for producers and 

processors.  

16.  There is widespread evidence17 that meat quality is influenced by animal welfare. Good 

treatment on the farm, during transport and during pre-slaughter handling is important, 

because the meat from stressed and injured animals can have a lower value due to 

discolouration and loss of tenderness. 

17.  Still, good animal welfare does not always go hand in hand with the economic interest 

of business operators. In intensive production systems, the higher the stocking density, the 

higher the profits but the more difficult it is to meet specific animal needs. Intensive systems 

can therefore lead to aberrant behaviour in laying hens such as feather pecking and 

cannibalism, aggression and tail biting in pigs and aggression in calves. To control this 

undesirable behaviour, it is common practice to perform painful physical alterations on 

animals, in particular beak trimming, tail docking, castration and teeth clipping. EU 

15   DG SANTE, “Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the 

Future”, Brussels, 2010. 

16   https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/animalwelfare, accessed in June 2018. 

17  

For example: Belk, K.E., Scanga, J.A., Smith, G.C. and Grandin, T., “The Relationship Between 
Good Handling / Stunning and Meat Quality in Beef, Pork, and Lamb”, Colorado State University, 
Fort Collins, 2002; DG SANTE, “Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible 
Policy Options for the Future”, Brussels, 2010; European Parliament’s Policy Department for 
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, “Animal Welfare in the European Union”, Brussels, 
2017. 

 
 
                                                      
16 

legislation addresses these issues notably through the minimum space requirements and 

rules on physical alterations (which allow certain procedures only in exceptional cases, after 

other measures have been taken to prevent the undesirable behaviour). 

18.  Similarly, the economic interest of transport operators is adversely affected by lower 

stocking densities and interrupting journeys to let animals rest. During slaughterhouse 

operations, the speed of the production chain is a key productivity factor, but this may affect 

the proper handling of animals prior to slaughter and the effectiveness of the stunning 

methods. There may also be other commercial reasons for not following good practices at 

slaughter (see example in Box 1). 

 
 
 
17 

Box 1 – Stunning of calves with methods not listed in good practice guidelines, for commercial 

reasons 

A slaughterhouse we visited in France used an alternative method for stunning calves (occipital 

stunning) to the one indicated in Commission and inter-professional good practice guides (frontal 

stunning). Both methods are in line with the slaughter Regulation18. An EFSA opinion19 on welfare 

aspects of stunning indicates that frontal stunning induces reliably effective stunning, whereas with 

occipital stunning there is a risk that it may be misdirected. This would result in shooting in the nape 

of the neck, which gives unsatisfactory results. The commercial advantage of the alternative method 

is that there are fewer brain lesions and bone splinters, allowing for better marketing of the brain. 

Frontal stunning 
(good practice)

Ineffective nuchal stunning

Authorised occipital stunning

Source: ECA. 

18   Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at 

the time of killing (OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1). 

19  Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission 
related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial 
species of animals, the EFSA Journal (2004), 45, 1-29. 

 
 
 
                                                      
18 

The EU animal welfare strategy 

19.  In 2010 the Commission concluded20 that the existing animal welfare legislation had 

generally improved welfare for the groups of animals to which it applied. However, it found 

that implementation varied across the EU, which hindered progress towards uniform high 

standards. Following a recommendation21 from the European Parliament, in 2012 the 

Commission launched the EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012-

201522, which set out the following objectives: 

(i)  to consider the feasibility of introducing a simplified EU legislative framework with 

animal welfare principles for all animals kept in the context of an economic activity; 

(ii)  to support Member States and take action to improve compliance; 

(iii)  to optimise synergies with the Common Agricultural Policy, notably through cross-

compliance and rural development; 

(iv)  to support international cooperation; 

(v)  to provide consumers and the public with appropriate information; 

(vi)  to investigate the welfare of farmed fish. 

The strategy also included a list of 20 actions that the Commission intended to complete by 

2015, focused mostly on publishing reports, studies and guidelines (see Annex I).  

20   DG SANTE, “Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the 

Future”, Brussels, 2010. 

21   European Parliament resolution of 5 May 2010 on evaluation and assessment of the Animal 

Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010. 

22 

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 of 15.2.2012). 

 
 
                                                      
19 

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 

20.  One of the strategic goals of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is to examine 

performance in areas where EU action matters to citizens. The aim of this audit, which is the 

first carried out by ECA in this area, was to assess the actions taken by the Commission and 

the Member States to improve the welfare of farm animals following the launch of the EU 

strategy for animal welfare 2012-2015. We focused on two key objectives identified in the 

EU strategy, which we considered to have a direct impact on animal welfare: to improve 

compliance with the animal welfare legislation, and to optimise synergies with the CAP 

through cross-compliance and rural development (objectives (ii) and (iii) listed in 

paragraph 19). 

21.  Our audit sought to answer the following audit question:  

Have the Commission and the Member States actions contributed effectively to achieving 

the EU animal welfare objectives? 

22.  We examined whether: 

(a)  the Commission’s strategy had been completed and had delivered its results; 

(b)  the guidance and enforcement actions of the Commission had led to better application 

of EU standards in key risk areas; 

(c)  the Member States we visited managed key aspects of their control systems effectively; 

(d)  cross-compliance was an effective tool to integrate animal welfare requirements into 

the Common Agricultural Policy and rural development measures incentivised higher 

animal welfare standards in a cost-effective way. 

23.  For points (a) and (b), we examined the evidence available to show the results of the 

Commission’s actions carried out to implement the animal welfare strategy. For points (c) 

and (d), we performed a direct assessment of Member States’ systems and procedures to 

address certain key risks. 

24.  We carried out our audit work from September 2017 to June 2018 and covered the 

period from 2012 to early 2018. For rural development measures, we examined the current 

 
 
20 

programming period, which started in 2014. The timing of the audit allows us to assess the 

implementation of the 2012-2015 animal welfare strategy, at a time when the post-2020 

CAP is being discussed. 

25.  We selected a sample of five Member States based on the size of the livestock sector 

and on the existence of animal welfare compliance weaknesses already identified by the 

Commission (DG SANTE)23: Germany, France, Italy, Poland and Romania. In Germany and 

Italy we selected North-Rhine Westphalia and Sardinia to examine the regional 

implementation of the animal welfare measure and the application of the rules on official 

inspections. Together, the selected Member States account for more than 50 % of the EU 

meat market and the selected rural development programmes cover about 40 % of the 

planned expenditure on animal welfare.  

26.  During our audit visits to Member States, we had meetings with the authorities 

responsible for official inspections, for checking cross-compliance and for the 

implementation of the rural development programmes. To better understand the systems, 

we observed official animal welfare inspections of farms, transport and slaughter, together 

with on the spot checks for cross-compliance and rural development.  

27.  At the Commission, we visited the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety 

(DG SANTE) and the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). 

In addition, we organised an expert panel to obtain independent advice on animal welfare 

issues. 

23  We have reviewed audit reports from DG SANTE covering all 28 Member States. These audit 

reports identified weaknesses in all Member States except Finland. 

 
 
 
                                                      
21 

OBSERVATIONS 

The Commission has concluded the second EU Strategy for animal welfare, but it has not 

assessed its impact 

28.  The Commission completed the last action in its 2012-2015 animal welfare strategy in 

April 2018, more than three years after the strategy was supposed to be concluded (see 

Annex I). The strategy does not identify an explicit link between the list of actions envisaged 

for the period 2012-2015 and the general objectives identified (see paragraph 19). 

Concerning two of the strategy objectives, the Commission has not reviewed the legislative 

framework or taken any action to optimise synergies with the Common Agricultural Policy. 

29.  Some of the actions planned by the Commission were delayed by up to five years (for 

example, the EU guidelines on the protection of animals during transport). The guidelines on 

pig welfare and on the protection of animals at slaughter were also delayed due to lengthy 

discussions with stakeholders. Most reports were based on external studies, which were 

sometimes delayed due to lack of staff at the Commission to manage the procurement 

process and review draft content. According to the Commission, certain enforcement 

activities (involving in some cases infringement procedures at the Court of Justice) related to 

the laying hens Directive (ban on traditional cages) and the pigs Directive (group housing of 

sows) were lengthy due to the high number of Member States involved. 

30.  The Commission did not renew the 2012–2015 strategy. However, it continued to 

facilitate stakeholder dialogue through the EU Animal Welfare Platform (launched in 2017), 

and set up the first EU Reference Centre for Animal Welfare24 to provide technical assistance 

on pig welfare to Member States. The EU Animal Welfare Platform has a particular focus on 

better application of EU rules on animal welfare, the development and use of voluntary 

animal welfare commitments and the promotion of EU animal welfare standards at global 

24   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/329 of 5 March 2018 designating a European 

Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (OJ L 63, 6.3.2018, p. 13). 

 
 
                                                      
22 

level. The Platform established two sub-groups, working to achieve concrete results in 

animal transport and pig welfare. 

31.  There are no baseline indicators or target indicators to measure how far the strategy 

objectives have been achieved and the Commission had not yet evaluated the results of its 

actions as requested by the European Parliament25.  

32.  Certain reports and studies produced at the Commission’s initiative contain useful 

information on compliance (see paragraphs 34 and 35). In particular, the Audit Directorate 

of DG SANTE performs audits and reports on specific animal welfare issues in selected 

Member States; however, these audits do not seek to assess the success of the 

Commission’s strategic actions.  

33.  Member States send annual reports to the Commission on the results of their official 

inspections performed under the EU legislation for animal welfare on farms26 and during 

transport. The Commission has recognised that the data reported is not complete, 

consistent, reliable or sufficiently detailed to draw conclusions on compliance at EU level27. 

The Commission informed us that it is seeking to improve the quality and consistency of the 

data reported under the new Regulation on official controls28. 

25   European Parliament resolution of 26 November 2015 on a new animal welfare strategy for 

2016-2020 (2015/2957(RSP)). 

26   Annex II presents an overview of the results of inspections reported by the Member States 

visited. 

27 

Source: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for 
farming purposes (COM(2016) 558 final of 8.9.2016) and minutes of the national Contact Point 
meetings for animal welfare during transport. 

28   Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on 
official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and 
feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products 
(OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1). 

 
 
                                                      
23 

The Commission and the Member States reported significant progress in applying EU 

standards 

34.  Good progress has been made on animal welfare in some areas covered by the strategy. 

In 201629 the Commission reported on improvements in the number of farm holdings 

complying with the Directive on the protection of farm animals. It concluded that the ban on 

unenriched cages for laying hens (2012) and individual stalls for sows (2013) was 

implemented effectively by the Member States. A Commission report from 201830 shows 

that some Member States improved welfare for broiler chickens, following their 

implementation of the Directive on broilers (2007). The Commission has also identified good 

practices concerning the transport of unfit animals, slaughter, welfare of dairy cows and 

commercial rabbit farming. 

35.  However, Commission reports identified some outstanding animal welfare issues 

related to the areas covered by the strategy: 

• 

on the farm: tail docking of pigs31, diseases affecting the welfare of dairy cattle32, 

assessment of technical requirements, such as ventilation, for chickens kept for meat 

production33; 

29   COM(2016) 558 final of 8.9.2016 “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
Council on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of 
animals kept for farming purposes”. 

30   COM(2018) 181 final of 13.4.2018 “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the application of Directive 2007/43/EC and its influence on the welfare of 
chickens kept for meat production, as well as the development of welfare indicators”. 

31   Commission overview report “Study visits on rearing pigs with intact tails”, 2016 (DG SANTE, 

2016-8987 – MR). 

32   Commission overview report “Welfare of cattle on dairy farms”, 2017 (DG SANTE, 2017-6241). 

33   COM(2018) 181 final. 

 
 
                                                      
24 

• 

• 

during transport: compliance with the rules on long distance transport of live animals 

(though recent Commission audits noted improvements in this area)34 and the transport 

of unfit animals35 (which is prohibited by the legislation); 

at slaughter: different practices for the derogation from the requirement to stun 

animals before slaughter, inadequate stunning procedures (in particular for waterbath 

stunning of poultry)36; 

•  Member States’ official inspections: quantity and quality of inspections, 

appropriateness of enforcement actions37. 

36.  The Commission tackled these issues through guidance and through enforcement. Its 

extensive guidance actions include developing and translating guidelines, carrying out study 

visits and organising training events for Member State inspectors and business operators. 

Since 2012, the Commission has organised 34 training events on animal welfare through the 

Better Training for Safer Food programme (involving more than 1 700 participants) and its e-

learning modules have been followed by 6 000 people. Box 2 contains an example of 

Commission collaboration with Member State representatives and stakeholder organisations 

to develop guidelines for animal welfare during transport, at slaughter and for the welfare of 

pigs.  

34   Commission audit or fact-finding reports: 2017-6109 (Bulgaria), 2017-6217 (Czech Republic), 

2017-6110 (Turkey). 

35   Commission overview report “Systems to prevent the transport of unfit animals in the EU” 

(DG SANTE, 2015-8721 – MR). 

36   Commission overview report “Animal welfare at slaughter in Member States” (DG(SANTE) 2015-

7213 – MR). 

37  

For example, audit reports 2016-8822 - MR, 2014-7059 - MR (Belgium), 2013-6858 - MR FINAL 
(Bulgaria), 2017-6022 (Czech Republic), 2014-7061 - MR FINAL (Denmark), 2016-8763 – MR 
(Estonia), 2017-6126 (Spain), 2014-7075 - MR FINAL (Italy), 2012-6374 - MR FINAL (Romania). 

 
 
                                                      
25 

Box 2 – Example of stakeholders’ engagement with the Commission’s initiative to improve animal 

welfare during transport 

The team working on the Animal Transport Guides project launched by the Commission in 2015 

asked over 100 stakeholders (farmers, transporters, slaughterhouse personnel, competent 

authorities and NGOs) from seven Member States to reflect on suggestions for good practice for 

animal transport. The team also set up a “Stakeholder Platform” to provide advice on the content of 

the guidelines. The Platform was composed of representatives from 13 international organisations or 

stakeholder groups. 

37.  The Member State authorities we visited found the guidance and training useful and 

widely disseminated the knowledge they had gained to their official inspectors and business 

operators. Some authorities expressed the need for more tools and guidelines available in 

their own languages, to allow for even wider dissemination. 

38.  The Commission monitors the application, implementation and enforcement of 

EU animal welfare legislation in the Member States by carrying out audit visits, issuing 

recommendations where necessary, following-up Member States’ action plans, and can take 

actions against Member States that fail to meet their obligations under the relevant 

legislation, including launching infringement procedures where appropriate.  

39.  The Commission launched an extensive series of infringement procedures against 

18 Member States since 2012, mainly concerning the housing of sows and the ban on 

traditional cages for laying hens38. According to the Commission, these procedures were 

successful in achieving compliance with the rules. The Commission also used the “EU pilot 

scheme”, which involves informal dialogue with the Member State authorities on issues 

concerning the correct application of EU law. Since 2012, the Commission has initiated 18 EU 

38   Group housing of sows: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, France, Cyprus, Poland, 
Portugal, Slovenia and Finland. Laying hens: Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, 
Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania. Transport of calves: 
Ireland, France. 

 
 
                                                      
26 

pilots concerning the Directives on laying hens and pigs, and 5 pilots in other areas (mostly 

concerning the protection of animals during transport). 

40.  To assess how quickly Member States reacted to the Commission’s recommendations, 

we reviewed the Commission’s 2012 to 201539 audit reports on animal welfare for the five 

Member States that we visited, the related action plans and their follow-up. We found that 

these Member States addressed almost half of the Commission’s recommendations in 

2 years or less.  

Member States took a long time to address certain recommendations and some issues are 

still outstanding 

Delays in implementing recommendations 

41.  Despite the Commission’s guidance and enforcement actions, the Member States we 

visited were slow to address a limited number of issues (see Box 3 for some examples). 

These mainly concerned their official inspection procedures, the qualifications of operators 

involved in slaughtering, the enforcement of the legal stunning requirements before 

slaughter, routine tail-docking for pigs and the appropriateness of sanctions for non-

compliance. This means that there are still some significant discrepancies between the 

animal welfare standards established in the EU legislation and the reality on the ground. 

39   When relevant (e.g. for particular recommendations that were still outstanding at the date of 

the audit), older audit reports were also reviewed. 

 
 
 
                                                      
27 

Box 3 – Slow progress in addressing certain Commission recommendations 

In France, DG SANTE found in 2009 that official inspections at control posts (where animals rest 

during long-distance journeys within the EU) were not adequate and recommended that the 

authorities address the weaknesses identified. To address this recommendation, the French 

authorities stated that they would develop a revised procedure manual for inspectors, but had not 

done so by the time of our audit in December 2017. 

Another Commission recommendation to France (issued in 2010) was to use appropriate equipment 

to carry out official inspections on environmental parameters (temperature, light intensity and gas 

concentrations)40 on farms and during transport. The related legislative requirements have been in 

force since 2000. The French inspectors’ procedure manual specifies that the maximum permitted 

concentration of NH3 (ammonia) is 20 parts per million and that this should be measured with 

specialised equipment. The French authorities had not, however, procured all the required 

equipment by the time of our audit. During our visit to a laying hens farm certified as free-range, 

where the presence of ammonia inside the building was evident, the French inspector did not have 

the necessary equipment to measure the level of gas concentration. The inspector noted in the 

inspection report that the related requirement had been met. In spring 2018, French authorities 

40  

So that assessment is made of all the relevant requirements of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 
20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (OJ L 221, 
8.8.1998, p. 23), Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum 
standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version) (OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5), Council 
Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of 
laying hens (OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 
2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, 
p. 1). In 2012, the Commission added to its recommendation the reference to the requirements 
of Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection 
of chickens kept for meat production (OJ L 182, 12.7.2007, p. 19). 

 
 
                                                      
notified the Commission that they had procured measurement equipment. However, inspectors 

were only asked to use this on farms raising chickens for meat. 

28 

Source: ECA. 

Over a series of audits in Romania between 2009 and 2011, DG SANTE recommended that the 

competent authority apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions for non-compliance with 

the animal welfare legislation. At the time of our audit, the Romanian authorities had not yet 

approved the necessary changes in the legislation to apply such sanctions. 

The Commission recently closed its recommendation concerning the practice of forced moulting in 

laying hen farms in Italy almost 13 years after it had originally raised this issue. Forced moulting 

involves provoking a flock to shed their feathers simultaneously, typically by withdrawing food, water 

and/or light, with the aim to increase egg production.  

42.  The Commission follows up on its recommendations based on evidence provided by 

Member States that they have put in place measures to address the identified weaknesses, 

and does not usually check on the spot the actual implementation and effectiveness of those 

 
 
 
29 

measures. We found some cases where the Commission had closed its audit 

recommendations, but the Member States had not addressed all issues effectively41.  

Insufficient information on whether the Member States have addressed the issues identified 

by the Commission on the use of the derogation for slaughter without stunning 

43.  The EU legislation for the protection of animals at the time of killing in 

slaughterhouses42 has been applicable since 2013 and aims to minimise the pain and 

suffering of animals by using approved stunning methods. The legislation contains a 

derogation to the stunning requirement which was already in the previous 1993 legislation, 

for animals subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites43, 

provided that the slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse. The recital of the EU 

legislation44 emphasises freedom of religion as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental 

Rights of the EU and the importance of leaving a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member 

State. The legislation does not indicate practical implementation methods or any reporting 

requirements on the use of the derogation. Not all Member States collect information on the 

use of the derogation. 

44.  The Commission’s 2010 evaluation of EU animal welfare policy and the impact 

assessment accompanying the 2012-2015 animal welfare strategy45 identified the issue that 

41   We identified this in Germany (3 recommendations), Italy (1 recommendation) and Romania 

(1 recommendation).  

42   Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. 

43  Halal or kosher meat. Slaughter with stunning (with methods listed in Regulation (EC) 

No 1099/2009 or alternative methods) may be permitted by certain religious communities. 

44   Recital 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. 

45  

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” (SEC(2012) 55 
final of 19.1.2012). 

 
 
                                                      
30 

“certain slaughterhouse operators excessively use the derogation from stunning to 

streamline their production process”.  

45.  In 2015, following 13 audit visits46, the Commission found wide variations in the way 

Member States operated the derogation for slaughter without stunning. It found better 

animal welfare results where the slaughter procedure was subject to targeted checks. 

Following these audits, the Commission attempted to gather data from Member States on 

the use of the derogation. However, the data provided was insufficient to allow any 

conclusions to be drawn at EU level. Aside from this data collection and the production of a 

study on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the 

stunning of animals47, the Commission did not undertake specific action to address the issue 

it had identified as regards the excessive use of the derogation. Our work showed that only 

one out of the five Member States visited had no specific procedures to check the 

justification for applying the derogation. It confirmed the Commission’s conclusions as 

regards the availability of data on the use of the derogation (see Table 1).  

46   Commission overview report “Animal welfare at slaughter in Member States” (DG SANTE 2015-

7213-MR). 

47   DG SANTE, “Study on information to consumers on the stunning of animals”, 2015. 

 
 
                                                      
Table 1 – Procedures to grant the derogation for slaughter without stunning and data 

available in the Member States visited48  

31 

Member State

There is a specific 
procedure to check the 
justification for 
applying the 
derogation

Availability of information on 
the extent of slaughter without 
stunning

Germany

France

Italy

Poland

Romania











Yes

Limited - only for cattle and 
sheep, based on operators' 
estimations
Limited - only number of 
slaughterhouses authorised to 
perform slaughter without 
stunning
Limited - some estimations exist 
for cattle and poultry, not 
validated by the competent 
authorities

Yes

Source: ECA, based on evidence gathered from Member States. 

46.  In November 2017 the Commission published extensive guidance on the protection of 

animals at the time of killing, including best practices for the use of the derogation, which 

focuses on technical aspects of the procedure. 

Member States’ management of their official inspection systems generally ensures 

consistency but there are some weaknesses in the control and audit systems 

47.  The quality of the Member States’ animal welfare inspections on the farm, during 

transport and at the slaughterhouse has a direct impact on the level of compliance with the 

48   Annex III provides a description of the procedures in place in the Member States visited. 

 
 
 
                                                      
32 

requirements. We analysed the consistency and targeting of these inspections, and how they 

were audited by the Member State authorities. 

Member States have generally put in place systems to ensure that inspections are 

performed consistently  

48.  Official veterinarians employed in governmental organizations enforce animal welfare 

standards. To be effective, inspections need to be performed consistently and 

independently. 

49.  Most of the Member States we visited had procedures to ensure that the inspectors’ 

work was consistent49.  

50.   We found that in all Member States visited, the official veterinarians were subject to 

the general rules on the integrity of public officials requiring them to be free of conflicts of 

interest. We identified good practices in France and Italy (Sardinia) where additional, specific 

procedures were applied to prevent conflicts of interest for their official inspectors (see 

Box 4). 

Box 4 – Good practices in preventing conflict of interest 

Italy (Sardinia) had recently adopted guidelines for preventing conflict of interest in the case of staff 

performing official inspections and had introduced an experimental three-year rotation programme, 

developed on three levels: territorial rotation, functional rotation and function segregation. It also 

introduced specific measures for the protection of whistleblowers.  

France had introduced a programme whereby specialised staff would carry out supervision activities 

for red meat slaughterhouses. This mitigates the risk of conflict of interest because it allows for an 

external verification of the activities of the official veterinarians carrying out regular inspection tasks 

in slaughterhouses. 

49  

In Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia), the inspectors from different districts used different 
checklists and there was no uniform approach concerning the application of fines. 

 
 
                                                      
33 

Insufficient evidence that Member States plan official inspections based on a risk analysis 

51.  The Member States’ official inspection systems cover other areas in addition to animal 

welfare, notably compliance with rules on food and feed safety, hygiene, the control and 

eradication of animal diseases and the use of pesticides. Given that all these areas are 

competing for resources, risk-based inspections help target animal welfare problems and 

thus use the limited inspection resources in a more effective and efficient way. Performing 

risk-based inspections is an EU legal requirement50. 

52.  The Member States had generally set up clear rules requiring that animal welfare 

inspections on the farm be risk based. We identified good practices in identifying risk factors 

in all the Member States visited. For example, France requires inspectors to plan their farm 

checks based on the information about the history of the operators, complaints received, 

use of prophylactic measures, data from slaughterhouses (on transport density, transport of 

unfit animals) and data on mortality rates or other indicators such as milk quality or calving 

intervals.  

53.  However, three out of the five Member States visited (Germany (North-Rhine 

Westphalia), Poland and Romania) could not demonstrate how the risk factors established 

were used in practice to select operators for inspection.  

54.  Furthermore, in two Member States, certain farms were excluded from official 

inspections, although they represented a large share of the livestock sector (see Box 5). 

Although in view of limited inspection resources it is reasonable to prioritise checks on larger 

farms, the risk that non-compliance at smaller farms might increase if they were completely 

excluded from inspections was not sufficiently considered by the authorities. 

50 

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004: “Member States shall ensure that official controls are 
carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency, so as to achieve the 
objectives of this Regulation.” 

 
 
 
                                                      
34 

Box 5 – Exclusions in the population of farms to be checked 

In Italy, pig farms with fewer than 40 pigs or 6 sows and goat, sheep and cattle (other than calves) 

farms with fewer than 50 animals are excluded from the population to be checked. In Sardinia, this 

leads to 85 % of pig farms, 67 % of goat farms and 86 % of cattle (other than calves) farms not being 

subject to animal welfare checks. 

In Romania, although no farms were formally excluded from the scope of animal welfare checks, in 

practice the authorities did not check agricultural holdings that fall within the definition of “non-

professional farms”. These holdings cover many of the animals in the pig sector (45 %) and almost all 

animals in the sheep and goat sector (99 %).  

55.  As regards the transport of live animals, of the Member States we visited, only France 

had identified risk areas to be targeted by road inspections. However, there was no 

information available to show that this was applied in practice.  

56.  TRACES (the EU online platform used to monitor intra-EU long distance, cross-border 

movements of animals) contains information and reporting tools that the authorities could 

use to target inspections of animal transports. In meetings with representatives from 

Member States, the Commission has promoted the use of interactive search tools. However, 

we found that Member State authorities responsible for transport inspections rarely used 

information from TRACES to target inspections, in part due to certain user access 

restrictions51.  

57.  Member State authorities usually delegate the responsibility for carrying out the risk 

analysis for farm and transport inspections to local authorities. None of the Member States 

visited had put in place systems to check the existence, quality and implementation of the 

local risk analyses. 

51 

For example, a local authority in a certain Member State will be able to view information on 
animal transport in its area only if it is a place of departure, of destination, a point of exit/entry 
to the EU or if a control post is located in the area. 

 
 
                                                      
35 

58.  Animal welfare inspections in slaughterhouses generally covered almost all operators in 

the Member States we visited, either through focused checks or as part of the daily activities 

of the official veterinarian on duty. 

Information from audits and complaints could be better used 

59.  The EU Regulation on official controls52 requires Member States to audit their systems 

for official inspections on feed and food law and animal health and welfare and Commission 

Decision 2006/677/EC sets out guidelines recommending that such audits are conducted at 

least every five years53. We found that in the Member States visited, the relevant authority’s 

internal audit department (and, in the case of Poland, also the Supreme Audit Office) 

identified areas for improvement in the organisation of official inspections and followed up 

their audit findings. However, Poland did not ensure that audits on animal welfare are done 

at least every five years. Furthermore, Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia) and Romania did 

not ensure a timely follow-up of audit recommendations. 

60.  The Commission checks how the Member States audit their systems of official 

inspections and has found54 that it is challenging for Member States to audit all the areas 

requiring official inspections in a reasonable timeframe, and to follow-up audit results.  

61.  The authorities can use complaints and requests for inquiry submitted to them by 

animal welfare organisations, citizens or other stakeholders to identify key areas of concern. 

The management of these complaints falls exclusively under the Member States’ 

responsibility.  

62.  We found that the Member States visited dealt with complaints on a case-by-case basis 

and two of them (Poland and Romania) had procedures in place, including deadlines for 

52   Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. 

53   Point 5.1 in the Annex of Commission Decision 2006/677/EC of 29 September 2006 setting out 
the guidelines laying down criteria for the conduct of audits under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls to verify compliance with 
feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 278, 10.10.2006, p. 15). 

54   DG SANTE, Interim Overview report, “Audits of Official Controls in EU-Member States”, 2017. 

 
 
                                                      
36 

dealing with complaints. None of the Member States had implemented a central register of 

complaints to give an overview of the main areas of concern in animal welfare and support 

further decision making.  

63.  In addition to its control activities referred to in paragraphs 34 and 36, the Commission 

has identified similar issues to those described above (see paragraphs 53, 55 and 57). 

Member States make limited use of the Common Agricultural Policy tools to address 

animal welfare objectives 

64.  The majority of livestock farmers receive CAP payments (see paragraph 9) involving 

cross-compliance requirements covering certain animal welfare conditions (see 

paragraph 8). The Commission’s 2012-2015 strategy recognised a need to improve synergies 

between animal welfare and the tools of the CAP, notably through cross-compliance and 

rural development. We examined how the Member States visited used these two 

mechanisms with regard to animal welfare.  

Limited exchange of results between official inspections and cross-compliance checks in 

the Member States and weaknesses in the application of penalties 

EU legislation provides the basis for coordination between the cross-compliance checks and 

official inspections 

65.  The official inspections and the cross-compliance checks both involve planning and 

carrying out visits, checking compliance with animal welfare legislation and deciding on 

appropriate actions to deal with non-compliance. It is up to the Member States to decide the 

extent of integration between the official inspections and the cross-compliance checks, 

within the limits of the EU legislative requirements.  

66.  The Delegated Regulation for cross-compliance indicates that non-compliance shall be 

deemed to be “determined” after having been brought to the attention of the competent 

 
 
37 

control authority or paying agency55. In many Member States, the Paying Agency has 

delegated the responsibility for cross-compliance checks to the control authority for official 

inspections. This means that any non-compliance identified at a CAP beneficiary during these 

inspections should be considered for the purposes of cross-compliance. This requires a 

system or a procedure that ensures the exchange of relevant information between the 

authorities56 concerned. 

67.  The Commission provided guidance on the application of the regulatory requirements 

for cross-compliance checks57. This guidance indicates that Member States could use the 

outcome of their official inspections to reach the minimum control rate under cross-

compliance58. Good coordination between the two control systems not only makes them 

more efficient by creating economies of scale and avoiding overlaps, but it also helps detect 

non-compliance more effectively. Furthermore, a consistent approach to animal welfare 

checks provides more clarity for farmers and higher incentives to meet the applicable 

standards. 

55   Article 38(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 

supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or 
withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural 
development support and cross compliance (OJ L 181, 20.6.2014, p. 48). 

56   Competent control body establishing the non-compliance and paying agency responsible for the 

calculation of the payment reduction. 

57 

58 

Commission Working Document on available control tools to optimise the efficiency of the 
cross-compliance checks (DS-2011-2), 2011. 

Article 68, paragraph 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 
2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, 
rural development measures and cross-compliance (OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 69). 

 
 
                                                      
38 

Member States have not used this opportunity enough to improve their control systems, 

though good practices were identified 

68.  All of the Member States we visited had taken steps to coordinate their official 

inspection and cross-compliance systems. We found good examples of coordination in 

Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia), France and Italy (Sardinia) (see Box 6).  

Box 6 - Examples of good coordination between authorities involved in animal welfare checks 

In Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia), inspectors performing official inspections on animal welfare 

requested cross-compliance checks, if they considered the cross-compliance requirements were not 

being met. If the additional check confirmed this issue, the farmer received an administrative penalty 

under cross-compliance, even if the farm was not part of the cross-compliance control sample. 

Similarly, non-compliances identified during a cross-compliance check could lead to fines under the 

official inspection system. 

In France, inspectors had to report non-compliances identified during official inspections to the 

authorities responsible for applying payment reductions under cross-compliance. Inspectors carried 

out “dual purpose” inspections by paying one visit to the farmer and using an integrated checklist for 

the purposes of both the official inspection and the cross-compliance check. 

In Italy (Sardinia), the approach to calculating cross-compliance administrative penalties was 

consistent with the rules for categorising the results of official inspections. This facilitated the work 

of inspectors who carried out both types of checks and resulted in a consistent approach in treating 

non-compliances. The other Member States we visited did not adopt such an approach. 

69.  In Romania there were formal arrangements to communicate non-compliance cases 

detected by official animal welfare inspections to the authorities responsible for the 

application of cross-compliance penalties, but this had not been done in practice by the date 

of our audit. In Poland, there was no such formal arrangement. 

70.  When the Commission carries out audits of Member States’ cross-compliance checks, it 

also reviews their procedures on exchange of information. However, it does not check if, in 

practice, the results of official animal welfare inspections performed at CAP beneficiaries by 

the same competent control body as for cross-compliance are reported to the authority 

responsible for imposing administrative penalties under cross-compliance.  

 
 
39 

Cross-compliance checks generally cover the relevant animal welfare requirements 

71.  We found that Member States’ cross-compliance checks generally covered relevant 

animal welfare requirements59. However, in three out of the five Member States visited 

(France, Poland60 and Romania) there were some exceptions. For example, in Romania the 

inspectors did not check cleanliness of the housing and lying areas for calves and pigs, iron 

levels in the diet of calves and environmental parameters such as dust levels, gas 

concentrations and temperature.  

72.  The Commission’s audits verify if Member States’ cross-compliance checklists cover all 

relevant animal welfare requirements and its recent audits identified omissions in Estonia, 

Spain, Austria, Portugal and Finland. Some of these findings have resulted in financial 

corrections61.  

Some Member States did not ensure that the penalties applied under cross-compliance are 

proportionate to the seriousness of the non-compliances identified 

73.  In order to have a dissuasive effect, the cross-compliance payment reduction should be 

proportionate to the severity, extent, duration and reoccurrence of the non-compliance 

found62. Our recent Special Report63 on the effectiveness of cross-compliance identified that 

there were significant variations between Member States in how they categorised the 

seriousness of a breach.  

59   Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum 

standards for the protection of calves (Codified version) (OJ L 10, 15.1.2009, p. 7), Articles 3 and 
4 of Directive 2008/120/EC and Article 4 of Directive 98/58/EC. 

60   Only one formal point missing from the checklist. 

61  

62  

63  

Following its audit findings, the Commission may launch procedures whereby EU funding for the 
Member State concerned is reduced. These procedures are referred to as “financial 
corrections”. 

In accordance with Article 64(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 

Special Report No 26/2016 “Making cross-compliance more effective and achieving 
simplification remains challenging” (https://eca.europa.eu). 

 
 
                                                      
40 

74.  We found that Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia), France and Italy (Sardinia) had clear 

rules for proportionate payment reductions. The most frequently used reduction percentage 

applied was 3 %64 except in Italy, where more than 70 % of the non-compliances resulted in 

warnings, without any administrative penalty. In Romania, a farm where inspectors 

identified non-compliances for up to 30 % of the relevant check points would be considered 

as fully compliant. This lenient definition was reflected in the extremely low number of non-

compliances reported, with only 3 out of about 13 500 farms checked having received an 

administrative penalty in 2016 (see Annex IV, which also shows that control rates and 

reported non-compliances varied widely). The cross-compliance requirements for animal 

welfare have been applicable in Romania since 2016, to allow for an adjustment period 

following accession in 2007. 

75.  In Poland, the payment reduction was based on a scoring system allocating points to 

each infringement of animal welfare provisions relating to a particular legal act. When 

deciding the payment reduction percentage to be applied, only the provision that had 

received the highest number of points was considered. This means that while the payment 

reduction considers the seriousness of a specific non-compliance, it is not linked to the 

number of non-compliances identified. 

76.  Some recent Commission audits65 have found that the sanctions system is too lenient 

for cross-compliance in general and for animal welfare requirements in particular because it 

does not ensure that sanctions are proportionate to the seriousness of the non-compliances. 

The Commission has provided some general clarifications on this in reply to questions from 

the Member States and in May 2018 organised an expert group meeting where Member 

States exchanged good practices concerning cross-compliance controls on animal welfare. 

However, Commission guidance documents on cross-compliance do not deal with this issue. 

64   Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 requires that the payment reduction is, as 
a rule, 3 % and can be reduced to 1 % or increased to 5 % based on the assessment of the 
importance of the non-compliance. 

65 

Commission audits for Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Slovakia reported this 
issue. 

 
 
                                                      
41 

Rural development: few incentives for improving animal welfare and cost-effectiveness is 

not guaranteed 

77.  Rural development support provides funds for animal welfare objectives. The 

Commission’s animal welfare strategy for 2012-2015 included an objective to optimise the 

synergies with rural development support for animal welfare. For maximum cost-

effectiveness, Member States should target actions with the greatest potential contribution 

towards animal welfare per unit of cost. 

Rural development funds not extensively used to promote animal welfare 

78.  In the current programming period 2014-2020, 35 out of 118 rural development 

programmes include the specific measure (“measure 14”) to support animal welfare (see 

paragraph 12); 13 of them are from regions in Italy. 

79.  The rural development legislation refers to animal welfare under the priority 

“promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of agricultural 

products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture”66. This priority has two focus 

areas67, but these do not refer to animal welfare.  

80.  Ten Member States have not used measure 14 in their rural development programmes. 

Two of the Member States we visited (France and Poland) did not use this measure because 

they considered that the basic legislative requirements for animal welfare were sufficient. 

Furthermore, the Polish authorities considered that the measure might have a negative 

impact on farmers’ competitiveness. In France, this choice contrasted with the national 

strategy on animal welfare launched in 2016, which contained an objective to attract rural 

development funds to help farmers improve animal welfare. The French strategy was 

66 

67  

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. 

“Improving competitiveness of primary producers by better integrating them into the agri-food 
chain through quality schemes, adding value to agricultural products, promotion in local 
markets and short supply circuits, producer groups and organisations and inter-branch 
organisations” and “Supporting farm risk prevention and management”. Focus areas establish 
the link between rural development priorities, measures and monitoring indicators. 

 
 
                                                      
42 

launched after the approval of the rural development programmes, and France did not 

update the programmes to reflect their commitment. 

81.  Several other rural development measures (notably support for farm investments, 

quality schemes or organic farming) have the potential to encourage higher animal welfare 

standards. Two of the Member States visited had examples of such measures targeting 

animal welfare (see Box 7). 

Box 7 – Use of rural development measures to target animal welfare 

Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia): beneficiaries applying for support for investments in animal 

housing under measure 4 (farm investments) have to fulfil specific animal welfare requirements that 

go beyond minimum standards. For example, cattle sheds have to respect higher standards for the 

space available for each animal and natural lighting. 

France: measure 4 (farm investments) from the Alsatian programme prioritises free range and 

organic systems, farms using special equipment for the welfare of rabbits and using straw bedding 

for pigs.  

“Animal Welfare” measure: good examples of actions that are beneficial for animals, but 

cost-effectiveness is not guaranteed 

82.  We reviewed Member States’ systems to assess whether the specific animal welfare 

measure (“measure 14”) is cost-effective. We checked whether the support rewards farmers 

for actual improvements in animal welfare going beyond minimum standards, in line with 

the additional costs incurred and income foregone and if there is sufficient relevant 

monitoring information. 

Going beyond minimum standards 

83.  Member State authorities defined the improved animal welfare conditions required to 

qualify for support under measure 14, such as summer pasture grazing for bovines, more 

space for animals on farms and during transport, and improved housing conditions. 

84.  In Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia) and in Romania, as in most other Member States, 

tail docking is routine in intensive pig farms, although this is prohibited by the legislation. 

 
 
43 

During our visits to these two Member States we saw that pigs in farms receiving 

measure 14 support had their tails docked and did not have access to sufficient enrichment 

material, as required by the legislation68(see Figure 5).  

85.  Veterinary experts69 agree that the impact on welfare of a single parameter is limited if 

not combined with other husbandry parameters. This means that an increase of 10 or 20 % 

in the space available for pigs may not have a high impact on their welfare if there is no 

enrichment material. 

68 

Point 4 of Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC: “pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient 
quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities, such as straw, 
hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such, which does not 
compromise the health of the animals”. 

69   Consulted during the expert panel organised for this audit. 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 5 – Non-respect of EU rules on the provision of enrichment material for pigs at a 

beneficiary of rural development funds for animal welfare in Romania 

44 

The enrichment  material is not of sustainable interest when 
pigs start to bite or chew other elements at their disposal 
like bars, drinkers etc. 

1 chain 
per box of 
50 pigs

All tails 
docked

Source: ECA. 

86.   DG AGRI consults DG SANTE before the approval of Member States’ rural development 

programmes. Despite this, the Commission did not use the information on areas of 

widespread non-compliance identified by DG SANTE (most notably, the routine tail docking 

of pigs and provision of enrichment materials, where only Finland and Sweden achieved 

compliance) to challenge Member States with regard to their use of the measure in those 

areas. 

 
 
 
45 

Mitigating the risk of deadweight 

87.  Deadweight refers to a situation where a subsidised activity would have been wholly or 

partly undertaken without the grant aid. There is a risk that a beneficiary would have applied 

the measure 14 requirements even without the rural development support, for example 

because the measure reflects normal farming practice, or because the beneficiary had 

already participated in a private quality scheme that covered the same requirements before 

applying for measure 14 support.  

88.  Our visits to the three Member States that apply the measure 14 showed that the 

managing authorities did not mitigate the risk of deadweight, particularly linked to private 

quality schemes. Both beneficiaries of measure 14 that we visited in Germany (North-Rhine 

Westphalia) and Italy (Sardinia) had adhered to private schemes with animal welfare 

requirements70. In Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia), the quality scheme covered about 

10 % of the pig farms in the region and included paid commitments that overlapped with the 

requirements of the animal welfare measure.  

89.  We noted that in Italy (Sardinia), the authorities had mitigated the risk that measure 14 

could support actions that reflect normal farming practices. The authorities considered both 

legal animal welfare requirements and the higher standards that local farmers regularly 

apply, when designing the animal welfare measure. The normal practice was determined 

based on the experience of veterinarians and on evidence from the Italian Agricultural 

Accounting Information Network. For example, the legal minimum space for calves is 1.8 m2, 

whereas in practice, farmers in Sardinia provided on average 3.2 m2 for each calf. The 

Sardinian authorities set the related animal welfare measure requirement at a minimum of 

4.5 m2 per calf. 

90.  The Commission issued guidance for Member States indicating that animal welfare 

payments should support operations that would not be otherwise implemented and carried 

out conformity audits to check the implementation of measure 14. However, the 

70 

“Initiative Tierwohl” in Germany, “UNICARVE” labelling scheme in Italy. 

 
 
                                                      
46 

Commission did not check when approving rural development programmes or during its 

audits if Member States took into account the possible overlap with private schemes. 

Checking if the support calculation is reasonable 

91.  In its Statement of Assurance audits, the ECA found that Romania’s calculation of 

measure 14 support resulted in excessive payments to farmers. The Commission confirmed 

mistakes in the calculation for five sub-measures and proposed financial corrections of about 

€59 million, covering payments made between October 2013 and October 2016. The 

Commission is currently investigating a similar issue concerning possible overpayments in 

another Member State. 

Monitoring animal welfare 

92.  The EU Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES)71 aims to demonstrate the 

progress of rural development policy and assess the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and 

relevance of rural development policy interventions, but it does not contain any specific 

animal welfare indicators or questions.  

93.  The Commission does not have information on the expected or actual results and 

impact of rural development funds provided for animal welfare. The existing indicators do 

not allow the impact of €2.5 billion of rural development funding allocated between 2007 

and 2020 for animal welfare payments (€1 billion for 2007-2013 and €1.5 billion for 2014-

2020) to be assessed. 

94.  Member States could define additional indicators in the framework of the CMES. The 

Member States we visited did not use this possibility. However, Italy (Sardinia) and Romania 

had defined some indicators for internal use. In Italy (Sardinia), the authorities developed an 

indicator for measuring the level of the number of somatic cells in the milk and used it as a 

71 

Article 67 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. 

 
 
                                                      
47 

proxy indicator for the welfare of sheep and goats. In Romania, the authorities used 

mortality rates to measure changes in welfare conditions in farms receiving support.  

95.  The synthesis of ex-post evaluations for the previous programming period72 evaluated 

the “animal welfare payments” measure based on the number of farms supported. The 

evaluation document indicated that impact was limited, as only 1.1 % of EU farms with 

livestock had used the measure.  

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

96.  Animal welfare is an important issue for EU citizens. This is reflected in the EU Treaty 

and the legislation in this area. The Commission has been proactive in addressing 

stakeholders’ concerns and it has developed a strategy to provide a framework for its 

actions.  

97.  Our audit examined the overall implementation of the strategy and progress in 

achieving the objectives of compliance with animal welfare legislation and optimising 

synergies with the Common Agricultural Policy through cross-compliance and rural 

development. We sought to answer the following question: 

Have the Commission and the Member States actions contributed effectively to achieving 

the EU animal welfare objectives? 

98.  We conclude that EU actions on animal welfare have improved compliance with animal 

welfare requirements and supported higher standards with a clear positive impact on animal 

welfare. However, certain weaknesses persist and there is scope for improving coordination 

with cross-compliance checks and the use of rural development support for animal welfare.  

99.  We found that the Commission completed the latest EU strategy on animal welfare (in 

doing so the Commission has not reviewed the legislative framework for animal welfare). 

There were delays for most of the actions planned (see paragraphs 28 and 29). The strategy 

72  

Synthesis of Rural Development Programmes (RDP) ex-post evaluations of period 2007-2013, 
evaluation study, Ecorys and IfLS, April 2018. 

 
 
                                                      
48 

did not define measurable monitoring indicators, the Commission did not assess if the 

strategy had achieved its objectives nor determine whether there was a need for a new 

strategy.  

100. The data available at EU level is not extensive and reliable enough to convey meaningful 

information about levels of compliance with animal welfare legislation in areas where the 

Commission has identified a need for improvement (see paragraphs 30 to 33). In particular, 

as regards the use of the derogation for slaughter without stunning, the legal basis allows for 

different interpretations and practices across the Member States and there are no reporting 

requirements. Therefore, there is not sufficient information available to assess whether 

Member States have prevented the excessive use of the derogation by certain 

slaughterhouse operators, which was one of the issues identified by the Commission before 

the launch of the current animal welfare strategy (see paragraphs 43 to 45). 

Recommendation 1 – Strategic framework for the Commission’s animal welfare policy 

To guide its future animal welfare actions, the Commission should: 

(a)  Carry out an evaluation of the 2012-2015 animal welfare strategy to identify to what 

extent its objectives have been achieved and if the guidance it has issued is being 

applied.  

Target implementation date: 2020. 

(b)  Define baseline and target indicators to measure and compare the Member States’ 

degree of compliance in remaining risk areas identified by the evaluation. 

Target implementation date: 2021. 

(c)  Reflect on how to address the conclusions of the above evaluation (for example, 

through a new strategy or action plan and/or a review of animal welfare legislation) and 

publish the results of its assessment. 

Target implementation date: 2021. 

 
 
49 

101. Our audit has shown that the Commission and the Member States have succeeded in 

addressing some animal welfare issues through a combination of guidance and enforcement 

actions (see paragraphs 34 to 40).  

102. However, progress has been slow in other areas and there are still a number of 

weaknesses regarding the application of the minimum standards required by the legislation, 

even where the legislation has been in force for up to 18 years (see paragraphs 41 and 42). 

Furthermore, despite some good practices, it was not clear that Member States’ animal 

welfare inspections were risk-based (in particular in the area of transport). The Member 

States visited did not make full use of information resulting from audits and complaints. The 

Commission has identified and acted on most of these issues, but it has not yet succeeded in 

fully addressing them (see paragraphs 47 to 63). 

Recommendation 2 – Commission’s enforcement and guidance actions in the area of 

compliance 

To better address risky areas and disseminate good practices, the Commission should: 

(a)  Develop an enforcement strategy to strengthen arrangements for the follow-up of 

DG SANTE’s recommendations, with the aim to reduce the time to trigger satisfactory 

actions to its recommendations issued after audits and to enforce legislative provisions, 

particularly those that have been in force for a long time. 

Target implementation date: 2020. 

(b)  Determine, together with the Member States, how the tools available in TRACES can 

support the preparation of risk analyses for inspections on the transport of live animals, 

and disseminate guidance on the use of these tools. 

Target implementation date: 2020. 

103. Member States’ checks generally covered the relevant animal welfare requirements and 

we found some examples of good coordination between the authorities responsible for 

official animal welfare inspections and those responsible for cross-compliance inspections. 

However, even though the same control authority performed the official inspections and 

 
 
50 

cross-compliance checks, some Member States did not ensure that information on non-

compliances identified during official inspections, with a potential impact on cross-

compliance requirements, could be exchanged effectively. Furthermore, there were cases 

where the cross-compliance penalties applied by Paying Agencies were not proportionate to 

the seriousness of the irregularities (see paragraphs 65 to 76).  

Recommendation 3 – Improve coordination between the official inspections and cross-

compliance 

To strengthen the links between the cross-compliance system and animal welfare, the 

Commission should: 

(a)  In its conformity audits on cross-compliance, assess the completeness of Member 

States’ reporting of non-compliances identified during official inspections performed by 

the same control authority as for cross-compliance checks, for example by 

crosschecking between the results of official inspections and the database of 

beneficiaries subject to cross-compliance. 

Target implementation date: 2020. 

(b)  Building on previous actions, further share best practices on cross-compliance and 

inform Member States of the conformity findings underlying decisions to impose 

financial corrections because of the lenient sanctioning systems linked to animal 

welfare. 

Target implementation date: 2020. 

104. Although promoting animal welfare was a rural development priority for the 2014-2020 

period, we found that the specific “Animal Welfare” measure was not widely used. The 

measure’s cost-effectiveness was reduced because it supported farms that did not respect 

certain minimum standards on pig welfare, there was a risk of deadweight due to overlap 

with the requirements of private schemes, and the common monitoring framework lacked 

indicators for improvements in animal welfare. Member States rarely used the opportunity 

 
 
51 

to support animal welfare through other rural development measures (see paragraphs 77 

to 95). 

Recommendation 4 – Using rural development support to achieve animal welfare objectives 

To encourage the effective use of rural development support for animal welfare, the 

Commission should: 

(a)  When approving changes to the existing rural development programmes, as well as 

when approving the new programming documents for the rural development 

programming period post-2020, challenge Member States on the use of the animal 

welfare measure in sectors where there is evidence of widespread non-compliance 

(such as pig tail docking) and check the potential overlap with private schemes covering 

similar commitments. 

Target implementation date: 2021. 

(b)  Encourage the exchange between Member States of good practices on additional, 

voluntary result and impact indicators for the animal welfare measure under the 

common monitoring and evaluation system that will be established for the 

programming period post-2020. 

Target implementation date: 2020. 

(c)  For the programming period post-2020, provide guidance to Member States on the use 

of other rural development measures to support improved animal welfare standards, in 

order to give farmers a wider range of incentives to improve animal welfare. 

Target implementation date: 2021. 

This Report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Nikolaos MILIONIS, Member of the 
Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 3 October 2018. 

For the Court of Auditors 

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE 
President 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

Annex I 

Overview of actions planned in the EU animal welfare strategy 2012-2015 

Actions planned 

Series of enforcement actions on the protection of laying hens (Directive 1999/74/EC) 
Implementing plan and enforcement actions on the grouping of sows (Directive 2008/120/EC) 
Implementing plan for the slaughter regulation (Council Regulation (EC) N° 1099/2009) 
Report to the European Parliament and the Council on: 

the various stunning methods for poultry1 
the application of the Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 banning the placing on the market of cat and dog fur1 
the impact of genetic selection on the welfare of chickens bred and kept for meat production1 
system restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position1 
the possibility of introducing certain requirements regarding the protection of fish at the time of killing1 
the application of Directive 2007/43/EC and its influence on the welfare of chickens bred and kept for meat 
production1 

Report to the Council on the implementation of Directive 98/58/EC1 

Report on the impact of animal welfare international activities on the competitiveness of European livestock 
producers in a globalised world 

Study on:  

the welfare of farmed fish at the time of killing 
the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals1 
animal welfare education and on information activities directed at the general public and consumers 
the welfare of farmed fish during transport 
the welfare of dogs and cats involved in commercial practices 

EU implementing rules or guidelines on: 

the protection of animals during transport 
the protection of animals at the time of killing 
the protection of pigs 

Possible legislative proposal for a simplified EU legislative framework for animal welfare 
1 Required by the EU legislation.

Due1 / planned 
2012 
2012 
2012 

Completed 
2012 
2012 
2012 

2013 
2012 
2012 
2014 
2015 

2015 

2013 

2014 

2012 
2013 
2013 
2013 
2014 

2012 
2014 
2013 
2014 

2013 
2013 
2016 
2016 
2018 

2018 

2016 

2018 

2017 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2016 

2017 
2017 
2016 
dropped 

 
 
1 

Annex II 

Overview of information included in the farm inspection reports submitted to the Commission by the audited Member States 

Country

Year

Average 
control 
rate

Laying 
hens 
Free 
range

Laying 
hens 
Barn

Laying 
hens 
Enriched

Turkeys

Domestic 
fowl

Ducks

Geese

Ratites

Pigs

Cattle 
(except 
calves)

Calves

Sheep

Goats

Fur 
animals

All 
categories 
of animals

Share of sites with non-compliance in the total number of sites inspected

Germany

France

Italy

Poland

Romania

2013
2014
2015
2016
2013
2014
2015
2016
2013
2014
2015
2016
2013
2014
2015
2016
2013
2014
2015
2016

5%

7%

8%

11%

14%

13%

8%

11%

3%

26%

20%

22%

17%

15%

31%

19%

n.a.

1%
1%

12%
22%
18%

5%
5%
5%
5%
74%
63%
50%

60%
61%

11%
3%
1%

16%
10%
12%
15%
0%
14%
50%

11%
6%
4%

14%
10%
10%
8%
30%
18%
25%

38%
46%

12%
13%
3%

8%
10%
13%
10%
22%
33%
9%

25%
32%

22%
0%
1%

2%
4%
6%
5%
0%
20%
13%

49%
42%

12%
8%
3%

14%
12%
19%
15%
25%
62%
15%

38%
32%

12%
7%
12%
9%
0%
0%

n.a.
n.a.

n.a.
n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

47%
44%

11%
7%
10%
3%
0%

50%
67%

0%
0%
11%

0%
0%
3%
6%
100%
50%
100%

58%
56%

15%
11%
7%

18%
16%
13%
14%
25%
20%
16%

41%
39%

13%
6%
4%

17%
17%
16%
15%
41%
29%
25%

33%
30%

9%
16%
5%

17%
17%
13%
12%
36%
45%
36%

46%
48%

9%
4%
3%

22%
17%
16%
16%
37%
21%
29%

56%
52%

9%
3%
3%

87%
16%
14%

14%
13%

54%
50%

14%
8%
0%

15%
10%
7%

0%
0%

44%
41%

12%
8%
4%

17%
17%
14%
13%
33%
28%
22%

Source: Reports on official animal welfare controls on farms submitted to DG SANTE.

 
 
 
1 

Annex III 

Member States’ checks and data on slaughter without stunning 

Member 
State 

Is there a specific procedure to check the justification for applying the 
derogation? 

Is there information available at national level to show the 
extent of slaughter without stunning? 

Yes, the competent authorities grant the derogation for slaughter without 
stunning based on a request from the followers of religious associations. 
The applicants must be based in the country and must prove that their 
religious precepts require the consumption of such meat. 

Yes, the competent authorities required the slaughterhouses to keep 
records of commercial orders corresponding to the use of the derogation. 
The French authorities’ internal evaluation of the derogation for slaughter 
without stunning pointed out that the correspondence between 
commercial orders and use of the derogation was not verifiable. 

Yes, there is a similar authorisation procedure to the one applied in 
Romania but there is no requirement for information on the number of 
animals concerned. 

Yes. The authorities’ estimations based on data from 2014 and 
2015 show that a very low number of animals were slaughtered 
without stunning in Germany (180 sheep and goats, 186 poultry) 
and that about 24 % of sheep and goats were slaughtered for the 
needs of religious communities with electrical stunning methods 
that are not listed in the applicable EU Regulation. In practice, 
imports from other countries contribute to the needs of the 
religious communities in Germany. 

There is a limited overview, based on unverified estimations from 
operators, which indicated that they applied this method for 
14 % of cattle and 30 % of sheep slaughtered in 2015. There is no 
information for poultry or goats.  

Limited – there is only some data on the number of 
slaughterhouses authorised to use the derogation. 

In Poland, slaughter without stunning was prohibited by national law from 2012 to 2014, when the Constitutional Court ruled that these 
provisions did not comply with the Constitution. Since 2014, the derogation provided by the EU legislation has been applied.  

Germany 

France 

Italy 

Poland 

 
 
No. The competent authorities only check if the slaughter takes place in a 
slaughterhouse and if the animals are restrained. There is no requirement 
to check that the derogation is supported by the existence of commercial 
orders for such meat. 

Limited – there are some unofficial estimates for cattle and 
poultry. 

2 

Romania 

Yes, the competent authorities grant the derogation based on a request 
from the slaughterhouse and a certificate from the religious authority 
specifying the species, number of animals concerned and date(s) when the 
slaughter would take place.  

Yes. In 2016, the authorities granted the derogation for about 
6 % of beef production, 9 % of sheep meat production and 4 % of 
chicken meat production. 

 
 
 
1 

Annex IV 

Cross-compliance checks in the Member States visited1 

Requirement Control rate

SMR 11
SMR 12
SMR 13

1.7%
2.2%
1.4%

Requirement Control rate

SMR 11
SMR 12
SMR 13

2.6%
2.3%
5.9%

Requirement Control rate

SMR 11
SMR 12
SMR 13

1.4%
1.4%
1.8%

Requirement Control rate

SMR 11
SMR 12
SMR 13

13.3%
13.3%
13.3%

Non-
compliance 
rate
5.1%
9.1%
9.3%

Non-
compliance 
rate
3.9%
6.7%
2.1%

Non-
compliance 
rate
2.8%
1.8%
1.5%

Non-
compliance 
rate
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%

Germany (2016)

Distribution of non-compliances by category of payment 
reduction

0%
8%
11%
4%

1%
5%
9%
27%

3%
70%
66%
46%

5%
18%
14%
23%

Italy (2016)
Distribution of non-compliances by category of payment 
reduction

0%
73%
75%
70%

1%
5%
3%
10%

3%
8%
13%
10%

5%
14%
9%
10%

Poland (2016)

Distribution of non-compliances by category of payment 
reduction

0%
0%
0%
0%

1%
2%
0%
1%

3%
95%
91%
92%

5%
3%
9%
7%

Romania (2016)

Distribution of non-compliances by category of payment 
reduction

0%
0%
0%
0%

1%
0%
50%
0%

3%
0%
0%
0%

5%
100%
50%
100%

NB: Data for France was not yet available at the time of the audit, due to the changes introduced in 
2015 with regard to the direct payments system in France and the adaptation of the Integrated 
Administration and Control System to the new rules of the CAP and cross-compliance (introduced in 
2015).  
Source: Cross-compliance control statistics submitted by the Member States to the Commission. 

1  

The SMRs (statutory management requirements) cover requirements and standards set out in 
Directive 2008/119/EC on the protection of calves (SMR 11), Directive 2008/120/EC on the 
protection of pigs (SMR 12) and Directive 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for 
farming purposes (SMR 13). The non-compliance rate and the distribution of non-compliances 
by category of payment reduction do not include cases of reoccurrence of non-compliance or 
intentional non-compliance. 

 
 
 
                                                      
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN 
COURT OF AUDITORS 

“ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE EU: CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN AMBITIOUS 
GOALS AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION” 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

III.  The  Commission  is  working  on  improving  the  targeting  of  support  to  promote  higher  animal 
welfare standards as set out in the proposed legal framework for the CAP post 2020.  

See also Commission reply to paragraph IX. 

V.  The  nature  of  the  actions  required  influences  the  time  in  which  progress  can  be  made  in  the 
Member States. The Commission continues to monitor and follow these matters. 

VII. The cross-compliance legislation includes general rules on penalties to be applied by Member 
States  to  assure  that  they  are  proportionate  and  dissuasive  (see  recital  57  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1306/2013), as they have to  take account  of the  severity, extent, permanence and reoccurrence of 
the non-compliance concerned (see Article 99(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013). In line with 
the principle of shared management, it is the Member States´ responsibility to establish the level of 
penalties applied to the individual farmers found in breach of the cross-compliance obligations and 
to proceed to recovery. If DG AGRI audits identify lenient sanctioning systems, this is followed up 
in the conformity clearance procedure and financial corrections may be applied to Member States. 

VIII. As the ‘Animal Welfare’ measure is not an obligatory measure, it is up to the Member States' 
authorities,  based  on  their  needs’  assessment,  whether  they  intend  to  include  such  support  in  the 
programmes. They may also support animal welfare through other funds including national funds.  

Already  in  the  current  period  2014-2020,  the  legal  framework  provides  a  clear  option  to  propose 
integrated  measures  (combination  of  measures).  Some  Member  States  use  this  option  and  apply 
other measures, such as those linked to investments or knowledge transfer  – the latter to promote 
good practices’ exchange in the field of animal welfare. 

IX.  The  Commission  published  its  proposal  for a  new  CAP  post  2020  taking  account  of  requests 
from  legislators  and  stakeholders  to  simplify  and  streamline  the  CAP  and  replacing  cross-
compliance  by  conditionality.  Member  States  will  have  more  flexibility  on  the  manner  by  which 
they  achieve  the  defined  targets  and  objectives  set  by  the  CAP  under  a  new  delivery  model. 
Promoting  animal  welfare  is  currently  part  of  a  broader  priority  addressing  the  food  chain 
organisation. Rural development policy offers a flexible framework that allows Member States, in 
line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  and  the  shared  management  context,  to  decide  how  to  best 
support the improvement of animal welfare. 

Making  animal  welfare  one  of  the  specific  objectives  of  rural  development  2021-2027  should 
further improve the place of animal welfare in rural development context. 

The  Commission  is  developing  a  project  on  animal  welfare  indicators  and  quality  controls  to 
investigate  the  usefulness  of  indicators  for  animal  welfare.  This  will  include  reviewing  the  links 
between  the  cross-compliance  system  and  official  controls  for  animal  welfare,  and  also  the 
suitability of indicators to measure the effectiveness of rural development programmes 

INTRODUCTION 

8. The Commission recalls that the list of requirements covered by cross-compliance is set out by 
the  legislators,  which  are  the  Member  States  via  the  Council,  and  the  European  Parliament. 
Furthermore, cross-compliance is not a mechanism to enforce sectorial legislation but aims to make 
the  CAP  more  compatible  with  expectations  of  society  by  referring  to  requirements  sufficiently 

1 

 
relevant  to  farming  activity  and  the  area  of  the  holding  (see  recital  54  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1306/2013).  This  explains  why  not  all  requirements  of  animal  welfare  are  automatically  part  of 
cross-compliance.  In  past  years,  the  legislators  have  always  called  for  simplifying  the  cross-
compliance mechanism resulting in shortening the list of requirements. 

9. Farmers can take the business decision on how to manage the farm e.g. to keep pigs and poultry 
without managing land at the same time. Furthermore, also farmers without land can be subject to 
cross-compliance if they are beneficiaries of certain rural development measures. 

10. The Commission points out that if sectorial legislation calls for a higher control rate, that rate is 
applicable. 

OBSERVATIONS 

28.  There  are,  in  some  cases,  clear  relationships  between  a  series  of  actions  and  the  strategic 
objectives.  For  example,  the  objective  "support  Member  States  and  take  action  to  improve 
compliance"  is  clearly  related  with  a  series  of  actions  on  laying  hens,  grouping  of  sows,  the 
slaughter regulation, animals during transport and the protection of pigs. 

The  animal  welfare  strategy  included  a  commitment  to  consider  the  feasibility  of  introducing  a 
simplified  EU  legislative  framework.  This  contributed  to  the  adoption  of  the  official  controls 
regulation  in  2017  and  the  consequent  designation  of  the  first  EU  Reference  Centre  for  animal 
welfare in March 2018. 

31. In the annex to the animal welfare strategy, a precise list of actions was established to monitor 
the  level  of  achievement.  An  evaluation  of  the  EU  animal  welfare  policy  was  performed  in  2010 
and  some  actions  listed  in  the  annex  of  the  strategy  reflect  strategic  objectives,  such  as  "support 
Member States and take action to improve compliance". 

The  Commission  acknowledges  that  no  target  indicators  to  measure  all  strategy  objectives  were 
defined. Its actions have not yet been evaluated since they were completed only by early 2018, and 
therefore, the impact of all actions has not yet materialised. 

Since 2017, the Commission has not established a new formal strategy. However, several activities 
have been developed focusing on three priority areas as follows: 

−  better application of EU rules on animal welfare,  

−  the  development  and  use  of  voluntary  commitments  by  businesses  to  further  improve  animal 

welfare, 

−  the promotion of EU animal welfare standards at the global level.  

39. The EU Pilot allows the European Commission services and the Member States authorities to 
engage  in  a  dialogue  with  a  view  to  finding,  at  an  early  stage,  quicker  and  better  responses  to 
questions on the  correct  interpretation,  implementation  and application of EU law. This  dialogue, 
while not a formal infringement procedure, follows a defined process. 

Box 3 – Slow progress in addressing certain Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  considers  that,  while  a  relatively  long  period  of  time  passed  while  France  up-
dated,  revised  and  issued  the  vade  mecums  for  controls,  some  instructions  were  available  for 
official control staff and some actions were taken to address the weaknesses identified. Therefore, 
official  controls  in  France  were  not  necessarily  non-compliant  with  EU  requirements  during  this 
period.  The  French  Vademecum  Inspection  of  Control  Posts  was  in  2017  still  in  the  process  of 
being finalised, but the French authorities had carried out inspections at control posts. DG SANTE 
continues to follow-up this issue. 

2 

 
The recommendation the ECA refers to was followed up in a further Commission audit undertaken 
in 2012 and was overtaken by a recommendation of that audit. The call for tender for equipment for 
all  veterinary  services  in  France  was  issued  on  27  April  2017  by  the  Ministry  holding  the 
agriculture  portfolio.  The  recommendation  was  closed  when  the  French  authorities  provided 
evidence that the equipment has been procured and instructions developed for staff on its use. 

It  is  possible  to  notice  the  smell  of  ammonia  in  a  poultry  house  even  when  levels  are  within  the 
legal limits. 

The  Commission  considers  that,  while  draft  amendments  to  the  relevant  Romanian  Government 
Decision  were  presented  in  the  context  of  follow-up  activities  undertaken  since  2014,  the 
Commission  has  not  yet  received  confirmation  that  they  were  adopted.  DG  SANTE  continues  to 
follow-up this issue. 

In fact, the situation evolved considerably during the period referred to, as described in the country 
profile report published in April 2017.  

−  In successive responses, various actions were proposed by the central Competent Authority. 

−  In 2016 the National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare was asked by the Central Competent 
Authority for support to re-consider the adequacy of the thresholds mentioned in the Ministerial 
note.  

−  The  Central  Competent  Authority  stated  that  it  planned  to  bring  the  previous  values  into  line 

with the new opinion of the National Reference Centre. 

The recommendation was closed on the basis of documentary evidence and this will be reflected 
in the next up-dated country profile, which is expected to be published in 2019. 

45. The Commission considers that this issue is complex and needs careful examination due to the 
implication in relation to the different religious communities.  

Since  2012,  several  Member  States  have  adopted  stricter  national  measures  regarding  slaughter 
without stunning (BE, EL, DK,  LT) in  addition  to  the Member States which had already national 
measures in place (AT, CZ, DE, FI, FR, HU, SE, SI). 

54. EU legislation on animal welfare is mainly aimed at large intensive farms (pigs, calves, laying 
hens,  broilers),  so  it  is  reasonable  that  authorities  use  their  limited  resources  to  inspect  the  larger 
farms rather than the many backyard farms1. However, this choice should be properly justified in 
the Member States’ risk analysis and may not lead to an exemption from controls. 

55.  Several  Member  States  use  systems  to  prioritise  checks  of  transport  planning,  loading  of 
animals,  and  roadside  checks.  The  Commission  has  shared  good  practices  found  in  Austria, 
Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK, with other Member States2. 

57. While it is true that carrying out the risk-analysis is mostly left to the local level, there are some 
notable  exceptions,  as  indicated  in  the  Commission  reply  to  paragraph  55  above,  in  relation  to 
checks of transport in Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK. 

1  

2  

As an example, Council Directive 2008/120/EC highlights in the preamble the following considerations, (6) differences which 
may  distort  conditions  of  competition  (7)  standards  …  to  ensure  rational  development  of  production,  which  therefore  place 
greater emphasis on larger scale production. 

See Overview Report 2014-7350, section 6. 

3 

 
                                                      
59. In practice, auditing all topics properly in a 5-year cycle has turned out to be unfeasible with the 
resources  available.  In  order  to  get  around  this  impasse,  further  guidance  was  provided  in  a  non-
binding guidance document. It explains that every topic under the scope of Official Feed and Food 
Regulation must be considered and reviewed in a regular (annual) risk assessment. Including a topic 
in the regular review process is considered as satisfying the requirement of “covering” that topic in 
a 5-year cycle. 

60.  The  relevant  Commission  audit  reports  include  recommendations  to  Member  States  where 
internal audit follow-up was inadequate; the Commission will follow up on these recommendations 
in line with normal procedures. 

61.  While  complaints  may  be  useful  in  identifying  issues,  they  do  not  generally  identify  all  key 
areas  of  concern.  Many  non-compliances  remain  invisible  to  potential  complainers;  moreover, 
complaints can also have features that cause potential bias. 

62. There is  no legal  requirement for Member States to  keep a central  register of complaints;  the 
lack of such register does not in itself demonstrate that information from complaints was not used 
appropriately  or  that  decision-making  was  not  adequately  supported  by  information  on  risks  to 
animal welfare (that can come from many different sources). 

64. Not all elements of animal welfare covered by the strategy are subject to cross-compliance and 
rural development such as e.g. animal transport. Hence, there are limitations on possible synergies 
between the CAP and the overall animal welfare legislation. 

65.  In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  shared  management  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission,  in  order  to  limit  administrative  burden  for  Member  States,  the  cross-compliance 
legislation  gives  Member  States  the  possibility  to  use  their  existing  administration  and  control 
systems instead of an exclusive system for cross-compliance (see Article 98(1) of Regulation (EU) 
1306/2013). It does not specify how Member State's should do this exactly and what would be the 
most effective way. 

66. Such exchange of information is audited in the course of DG AGRI´s cross-compliance audits. 
Where deficiencies are detected, financial corrections are imposed to Member States. 

70. The Commission does not have the authority to include in its cross-compliance audits all types 
of  checks  relating  to  animal  welfare.  The  animal  welfare  checks,  carried  out  by  national  control 
authorities outside the 1% cross-compliance sample, are based on non-CAP legislation and as such 
cannot fall within the remit of DG AGRI’s audits. 

The specific rules on reporting included in the cross-compliance legislation refer to controls done in 
the context of cross-compliance only. 

However, if the paying agency receives information on possible infringements detected outside the 
cross-compliance controls, such observations may also qualify as basis for evaluation and possible 
later  application  of  a  cross-compliance  penalties.  If  the  said  breaches  are  reported  to  and 
subsequently  evaluated  by  the  paying  agency,  the  Commission's  audits  cover  them  during  their 
audits. 

73.  In  accordance  with  shared  management,  the  cross-compliance  legislation  provides  that  the 
evaluation  grids  of  regions  or  Member  States  are  established  by  the  relevant  national  or  regional 
bodies. However, the European legislation provides for a framework by stating that penalties shall 
be  "proportionate,  effective  and  dissuasive"  (see  recital  57  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013). 
Further, Article 99 of the said Regulation states that penalties shall be calculated taking account of 
severity, extent and permanence as well as reoccurrence and possible intentionality. Furthermore, in 

4 

 
particular  Article  38-40  of  Regulation  (EU)  640/2014  and  Articles  73-75  of  Regulation  (EU) 
809/2014 provide further details to be respected by Member States when applying penalties. 

74. The Commission considers that control statistics do not constitute evidence in their own right to 
support  a  claim  that  a  control  or  sanctioning  system  is  deficient  (‘lenient’),  and  that    the  Court’s 
ruling  on  case  T-506/15  (par.  224)  means  that  a  low  error  rate  may  (only)  serve  to  underpin  a 
serious doubt on behalf of the auditor. 

As regards the observation that “a farm where inspectors identified non-compliances for up to 30 % 
of the relevant check points would be considered as fully compliant” (Romania), the Commission 
considers that such specific cases would be picked up in its audits. 

75. The Commission takes note of the ECA´s observation but recalls that it is for the Member States 
to establish sanctioning systems ‘at their own discretion’. 

The Commission points out that Member States’ evaluation grids (such as the Polish one) usually 
allocate  different  numbers  of  points  in  function  of  the  gravity  of  the  non-compliance,  i.e.  the 
combination  of  ‘severity’,  ‘extent’  and  ‘permanence’.  The  number  of  breaches  is  therefore  not 
always a factor determining the administrative penalty under the framework of cross-compliance. 

Moreover,  ‘lenient’  sanctioning  systems  (which  do  not  respect  the  requirement  that,  as  a  general 
rule,  the  sanction  shall  be  3%,  according  to  Article  39  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  640/2014) 
would be picked up during DG AGRI audits, see Commission reply to paragraph 76. 

76. The Commission confirms that the audits mentioned in the footnote to ECA’s observation have 
revealed sanctioning systems that preclude the application of proportionate sanctions (e.g. in some 
cases it was not possible to apply 5%, in other cases it was not possible to apply 3% or 5%). Each 
one of those audits has led to a financial correction and a request to the Member State to update the 
sanctioning  grid  such  that  it  takes  due  account  of  ‘severity’,  ‘extent’  and  ‘permanence’  for  all 
applicable cross-compliance requirements. 

It should be emphasized that, in light of shared management, it is for the Member States to design 
evaluation grids that are adequate for local farming practice. The legal provisions do not prescribe 
how  to  calculate  reductions  for  individual  infringements  but  include  general  rules.  Consequently, 
the evaluation grids are not subject to the Commission´s approval. In order to support the Member 
States,  the  Commission  regularly  organises  expert  meetings  during  which  best  practices  are 
exchanged. 

79. Although animal welfare is not listed explicitly in Focus Area 3A, it is not to be understood as 
an  exclusion  considering  that  the  objective  to  improve  animal  welfare  contributes  to  the  goal  of 
adding value to agricultural products, which is part of Focus Areas 3A. 

80. Member States or Regions programme their respective Rural Development Programmes based 
on  a  SWOT  analysis  and  the  needs  assessment  for  that  specific  programme  area.  Thereby,  rural 
development support is addressing a wide range of needs, not only animal welfare. 

81.  Further  to  support  for  farm  investments,  quality  schemes  or  organic  farming,  support  by 
knowledge  transfer,  training  and  advisory  services  is  to  be  mentioned.  Those  measures  are  often 
combined with measure 14 ’animal welfare’ in order to raise awareness of farmers and disseminate 
best practices for enhanced animal welfare management. 

84. On the Commission’s request,  Member States have been required to  establish action plans on 
how  the  legal  ban  on  tail  docking  will  be  implemented.  North  Rhine  Westphalia  has  set  a  draft 
action plan in the beginning of 2018, which now forms the basis for further consultation at the state, 
national and EU levels. 

5 

 
Cross-compliance  rules  also  apply  to  support  for  animal  welfare  under  the  Rural  Development 
Programme,  including  law  on  pigs  protection,  the  non-respect  of  such  rules  depending  on  the 
seriousness of the non-compliance, should lead to a sanction/an administrative penalty. 

85. The Commission promotes the combination of several commitments or even several measures 
(so called integrated measures) to enhance animal welfare in order to ensure that several parameters 
are improved simultaneously. However, in the end it is Member States’ decision which parameters 
they want to improve through the use of rural development funds and which via other instruments 
and funds. The limitation in available resources can also be one of the reasons for focusing on the 
most necessary parameters. 

86.  Member  States  base  their  programming  of  the  measure  on  their  SWOT  analysis  and  needs 
assessment in the sector. Furthermore, they are expected to define commitments for Measure 14 in a 
way  to  well  establish  the  baseline  and  to  exceed  the  normal  practices  carried  out  on  farms.  DG 
SANTE  is  by  default  consulted  before  approval  of  a  new  animal  welfare  measure  under  rural 
development, which  supports DG AGRI’s approach to establish effective animal welfare measures 
and to tackle those areas with the highest needs. 

As  to  cross-compliance,  the  prohibition  of  routine  tail  docking  is  part  of  the  requirements  and 
therefore part of the baseline for Rural Development measures. However, it has to be noted that in 
many Member States, in particular, intensive pig farms are not covered by cross-compliance due to 
the mere fact that they are not automatically CAP beneficiaries. These pig farms mostly do not have 
agricultural land. Hence, they do not profit from direct payments (Pillar 1) as these are land based. 
These  farms  could  though  ask  for  Rural  Development  support  (Pillar  2)  but  this  would  be  on  a 
voluntary  basis.  This  is  why  cross-compliance  can  never  serve  as  an  implementing  tool  for  other 
policies, as its impact is limited to CAP beneficiaries. 

87. Member States are expected to define the commitments for Measure 14 in a way to exceed the 
normal practices applied on farms in order to ensure real added value of the support and to avoid 
overcompensation. Such a structure of the support for animal welfare is to exclude the possibility of 
supporting practices which are considered as normal farming practices in the Member State and/or 
Region concerned.  

As  to  the  risk  of  deadweight,  the  Commission  considers  that  farmers  need  financial  support  to 
respect commitments going beyond the baseline animal welfare requirements. 

As  to  a  potential  overlap  with  private  quality  schemes,  please  see  the  Commission’s  reply  to 
paragraph 88. 

88. It should be stressed that the participation in quality schemes does not necessarily constitute an 
overlap with measure 14, even if both instruments cover management commitments. This is when 
the commitments supported by various instruments differ in quantitative and/or qualitative terms (in 
the  case  of  Sardinia)  or  if  the  compensation  of  costs  occurred  and  income  foregone  for  such 
commitments  do  not  exceed  the  100%:  As  to  the  calculation  of  the  premia,  see  the  Commission 
reply to paragraph 90.  

Such  an  approach  allows  a  financial  burden  to  be  shared  between  various  tools  and  instruments 
even though it might lead to a higher administrative efforts for the authorities. 

90.  During  the  approval  of  the  programmes,  the  Commission  assesses  the  methodology  based  on 
which the payments are calculated as well as the baseline for the proposed commitments to ensure 
they  only  cover  actions  additional  to  mandatory  requirements  and  practices  normally  carried  out. 
Member States must also ensure that the calculations are adequate and are confirmed or done by a 
functionally independent body. 

6 

 
During the audits, the possible overlapping with EU Funds or national public Funds is checked as 
part of the check of the control system for all the measures/or operations that are subject to a given 
audit.  An  audit  finding  will  be  used  by  the  Commission  in  the  overall  assessment  of  the  correct 
implementation of the measures/operations and will be part of the conformity clearance procedure, 
in some cases can lead to an amendment of the rural development programme. 

92.  While  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System  (CMES)  defines  indicators  for 
measuring the CAP performance, the current system does not contain any specific animal welfare 
indicators. Output indicators are however collected at the level of the measures and attributed to the 
respective focus areas. 

A balance is needed as regards the definition of monitoring indicators and their cost-effectiveness 
and data availability. The assessment of broad outcomes of measures is to be placed in the context 
of  evaluation,  for  which  the  CMES  indicators  provide  only  a  supportive  function  and  Member 
States are free to establish additional indicators. 

93. The assessment of support for animal welfare is best done in the context of evaluation. For the 
period  2007-2013,  an  evaluation  synthesis  on  the  effects  of  the  measure  215  “animal  welfare 
payments”  was  done,  based  on  the  ex-post  evaluations  of  the  Member  States,  which  have 
implemented  the  measure.  The  evaluation  together  with  the  accompanying  Staff  Working 
Document are envisaged to be published in the last quarter of 2018. 

95. Measure 215 'animal welfare' was implemented in 11 Member States (30 regions), with a total 
EAFRD expenditure of € 1 billion. The synthesis of ex-post evaluations assessed the impact of the 
measure as limited, partly due to the low number of regions in which the measure was implemented. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

99. The animal welfare strategy included a commitment to consider the feasibility of introducing a 
simplified  EU  legislative  framework.  This  contributed  to  the  adoption  of  the  official  controls 
regulation  in  2017  and  the  consequent  designation  of  the  first  EU  Reference  Centre  for  animal 
welfare in March 2018. 

The  Commission  acknowledges  that  the  strategy  did  not  include  target  indicators  to  measure  all 
strategy objectives (see Commission reply to paragraphs 28 and 31). The actions have not yet been 
evaluated since they were completed only by early 2018, and therefore, the impact of all actions has 
not yet materialised. 

Since  2017,  the  Commission  has  carried  out  several  activities  focusing  on  three  priority  areas  as 
follows: 

−  better application of EU rules on animal welfare,  

−  the  development  and  use  of  voluntary  commitments  by  businesses  to  further  improve  animal 

welfare, 

−  the promotion of EU animal welfare standards at the global level. 

100. The Commission considers that the issue of slaughter without stunning is complex and needs 
careful examination due to the implication in relation to the different religious communities. 

Recommendation 1 – Strategic framework for the Commission’s animal welfare policy 

(a) The Commission accepts recommendation 1(a) and plans to perform an evaluation of the 2012 
animal welfare strategy. The time frame for such an evaluation needs to consider that the impact of 
all actions has not yet materialised, together with resource implications of this complex work.  

7 

 
(b)  The  Commission  accepts  recommendation  1(b).  It  will  be  implemented  by  defining  areas  or 
sectors and developing a methodology to compare Member States' performances.  

(c) The Commission accepts recommendation 1(c).  

102. The nature of the actions required influences the time in  which progress  can be made in  the 
Member States. The Commission continues to monitor and follow these matters. 

See Commission replies to Box 3 and paragraphs 59 to 62. 

Recommendation  2  –  Commission’s  enforcement  and  guidance  actions  in  the  area  of 
compliance 

(a)  The  Commission  accepts  recommendation  2(a).  Arrangements  are  already  in  place  for  the 
follow-up of audit recommendations and for enforcing EU legislation. 

The Commission has systematic procedures in place for follow-up of audit recommendations since 
2005,  and  incremental  enforcement  actions  can  be  used  where  non-compliance  with  EU  rules 
persists. The effectiveness of the procedures is kept under regular review. 

However, the Commission acknowledges that further progress can be achieved to reduce the time to 
trigger  satisfactory  actions  to  its  recommendations  issued  after  audits  and  to  enforce  legislative 
provisions, particularly those that have been in force for a long time. 

Therefore,  the  Commission  is  working  to  enhance  its  procedures  for  the  monitoring  and 
enhancement  of  all  food  and  health  legislation,  which  will  of  course  cover  the  follow  up  to 
recommendations arising from Commission audits. 

(b)  The  Commission  accepts  recommendation  2(b)  and  will  discuss  with  Member  States  possible 
improvements  in  the  TRACES  system  to  support  the  preparation  of  the  Member  States'  risk 
analyses for inspections on the transport of live animals. 

Recommendation  3  –  Improve  coordination  between  the  official  inspections  and  cross-
compliance 

The Commission does not accept recommendation 3(a). 

The Commission is of the opinion that where these official inspections referred by ECA are used to 
reach the minimum  rate of 1% of beneficiaries to be checked for cross-compliance (Article 68 of 
Regulation (EU) 809/2014), they are indeed within the scope of DG AGRI's audits and the related 
reporting  is  evaluated  for,  among  other  aspects,  completeness.  However,  where  these  official 
inspections are done over and above the minimum control rate, that is to say outside the scope of 
the cross-compliance framework, there is no legal obligation for the inspectors to qualify and assess 
their findings in light of the cross-compliance rules and to subsequently report them. Therefore, and 
unless their results are reported, such checks  – or the completeness of their reporting  – cannot be 
covered by the DG AGRI's audits. 

(b) The Commission accepts the recommendation and will follow it up in the context of the expert 
group on cross-compliance. 

104. Promoting animal welfare is part of a broader priority addressing the food chain organisation. 
Rural development policy offers a flexible framework/toolbox which allow Member States, in line 
with the principle of subsidiarity and the shared management context, to decide how to best support 
the  improvement  of  animal  welfare  in  line  with  EU  policy  objectives  and  the  Member 
States'/Regions'  specific  context,  potential  and  needs.  Almost  a  third  of  all  the  rural  development 
programmes  2014-2020  include  this  measure  and  indicates  the  number  of  beneficiaries  receiving 
support. 

8 

 
As  to  the  risk  of  deadweight,  the  Commission  considers  that  farmers  need  financial  support  to 
respect  commitments going beyond the baseline  animal  welfare  requirements.  The architecture of 
the measure build on the principle that only actions going beyond mandatory requirements are to be 
supported under Animal Welfare measure is supposed to prevent deadweight. 

The Commission continues to disseminate good practices and examples for improvement of animal 
welfare also by a good combination with other rural development measures, in particular knowledge 
transfer and training, as well as investments. 

Recommendation 4 – Using rural development support to achieve animal welfare objectives 

(a)  The  Commission  accepts  this  recommendation,  which  builds  on  practice  in  the  current 
programming period.  

Member States are expected to define commitments for Measure 14 in a way to well establish the 
baseline and to exceed the normal practises in order to ensure real added value of the support and to 
avoid  overcompensation.  The  Commission  will  continue  –  in  case  of  programme  amendments  or 
new introduction of the measure in the current programming period – to encourage Member States 
to implement this measure in particular in sectors with highest needs. For example, all measures in 
the pig sector also contribute to increasing compliance with the respective directive. DG SANTE is 
by default consulted before approval of a new animal welfare measure under rural development. 

Making  animal  welfare  one  of  the  specific  objectives  of  rural  development  2021-2027  should 
further improve the place of animal welfare in rural development context. 

(b)  The  Commission  accepts  the  recommendation  to  encourage  the  exchange  between  Member 
States  of  good  practices  on  additional  (i.e.  non-obligatory)  result  and  impact  indicators  for  the 
animal welfare measures. It is to be noted that the proposals for the CAP post-2020 period include 
the  specific  objective:  ‘Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands  on  food  and 
health,  including  safe,  nutritious  and  sustainable  food,  as  well  as  animal  welfare’  and  a  core 
indicator  O.16  –  ʿNumber  of  livestock  units  covered  by  support  for  animal  welfare,  health  or 
increased biosecurity measures’. In addition, the proposal includes a common result indicator R.38 
–  ‘Improving  animal  welfare:  Share  of  livestock  units  covered  by  supported  action  to  improve 
animal  welfare’.  Therefore,  the  Commission  can  commit  to  encourage  the  exchange  of  good 
practices on indicators for the animal welfare for the future. 

(c)  The  Commission  accepts  this  recommendation,  which  builds  on  practice  in  the  current 
programming period.  

The website of the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) provides many examples of 
good practices for projects aiming at improving animal welfare, including investment projects 
(https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/search/site/animal%20welfare_en). 

Making  animal  welfare  one  of  the  specific  objectives  of  rural  development  2021-2027  should 
further improve the place of animal welfare in rural development context. However, in the context 
of the new delivery model proposed for the CAP post 2020, the Commission is currently not in the 
position to make more specific commitments as to guidance provided to Member States.  

9 

 
 
Event 

Date 

Adoption of Audit Planning Memorandum (APM) / Start of audit 

13.9.2017 

Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee) 

12.7.2018 

Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure 

3.10.2018 

Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all 
languages 

8.11.2018 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-847-1150-5 

doi:10.2865/950259  QJ-AB-18-026-EN-N 

HTML 

ISBN 978-92-847-1158-1 

doi:10.2865/583298  QJ-AB-18-026-EN-Q 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The EU has some of the world’s highest animal welfare 
standards, which have been in force for decades, and 
animal welfare objectives are embedded in the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP). The most recent Commission 
animal welfare strategy aimed to address compliance issues 
and to improve synergies with the CAP. We found that EU 
actions to improve animal welfare were successful in some 
areas, but there were delays in their implementation and 
weaknesses persist in certain areas related to welfare issues 
on the farm, during transport and at slaughter. We make 
recommendations covering the strategic framework, 
Commission enforcement and guidance actions to support 
Member States in achieving compliance, and actions to 
strengthen the links between animal welfare and the 
agricultural policy.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 
1615 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1 

Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx 
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditors

© European Union, 2018

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union copyright, permission 
must be sought directly from the copyright holders.