EPRS Research paper on 'Implementation of EU legislation on 'on farm' animal welfare. Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare

EPRS Research paper on
 ‘Implementation of EU legislation on ‘on farm’ animal welfare.
Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare
               labelling requirements at EU level’

                     Presentation in AGRI Committee
                              13th July 2021

                                                            Page 1

Relevance
• The legislation on animal welfare ‘on-farm’ needs updating to
  reflect advances in animal welfare science on a number of aspects
  currently in scope of the legislation.
• Today’s legislation is not a major driver of change anymore. It is
  lagging behind other drivers, notably civil society demands,
  private and public initiatives at national level.
• The legislation needs redrafting. Exceptions, derogations, and
  vague wording are linked to persistent undesirable practices; there
  is scope for more detailed rules. But fully detailed, prescriptive
  legislation may not be possible or desirable, given the diversity of
  systems of production, sector and species needs in EU.

ARCADIA International                                            Page 2

Effectiveness
• The legislation has had mixed effects:
    • Significant, structural changes to systems of production for laying hens,
      and some aspects concerning pigs and calves
    • No major difference to broilers or other species farmed
    • Major issues the EU legislation meant to address remain widespread
      (mutilations, cramped and stressful housing conditions, lack of
      enrichment, production pressure...)
• Implementation has been uneven
    • wording of the legislation; political will in MS; monitoring and enforcement
      strategies and resources; knowledge; sector structure; export focus in
      sectors; lobbying; civil society, etc.
    • Historically ‘laggard’ countries changing and catching up
    • Fragmentation leads to distortions of competition
ARCADIA International                                                       Page 3

Impacts
• The general directive has had the least impact
    • Useful as a statement of guiding principles and aspirations
    • Too vague to have measurable impacts
• Most stakeholders call for species-specific protection for cattle
  (dairy cows), broiler and hen breeders, rabbits, sheep, turkeys
• The broilers directive appeared to be the least impactful of the
  four species-specific directives. The investments it generated
  were significantly less than those that the hens, calves, and pigs
  directive generated.
• Legislation on pigs, calves, hens drove structural changes in
  buildings, equipment, and the demography of the sector

ARCADIA International                                               Page 4

Efficiency and added value
• The data on the efficiency (the ratio of implementation costs to
  the impacts achieved) is limited. It suggests that the costs were
  generally justified and proportionate relate to the impacts. A few
  industry stakeholders consider the costs unjustified and
  disproportionate.
• It is generally agreed that a common set of rules at EU level was
  needed and has provided added value, a common framework and
  minimum standards. Intra-EU divergence and consumer
  expectations suggest the case for EU intervention remains very
  much alive.

ARCADIA International                                          Page 5

Coherence
• Animal welfare legislation is coherent with animal health
  legislation but both could be better integrated
• There is a need for greater coherence between the EU animal
  welfare legislation and EU policies on:
   • Agriculture
   • Aquaculture
   • Trade
   • Fair prices within value chains
• There is contradictory evidence on the links between animal
  welfare and environmental policies, showing either that they can
  be mutually reinforcing, or that one undermines the other
ARCADIA International                                         Page 6

A note on data
• There are significant gaps in the evidence on how much
  compliance there is with the different requirements, across MSs
  and across sectors
• When available, evidence is rarely comparable
• The study has strived to address this challenge by speaking to
  many different stakeholders in 11 Member States and collecting
  evidence from a wide range of sources
• Addressing this data gap by monitoring practices better would
  greatly contribute to shedding more light on the progress
  accomplished and the problems that remain

ARCADIA International                                         Page 7

Animal welfare labelling systems in the EU
•     A survey performed during the
      research led to identify 24 labelling
      systems addressing animal welfare in
      the EU
•     Such systems have been recently
      proliferating on the EU market with
      more than a half having been
      established after 2010
•     They are concentrated in a limited
      number of EU countries (n=9) with
      Southern European countries
      registering the highest increase over
      the last years

    ARCADIA International                     Page 8

Animal welfare labelling systems in the EU
• All systems mapped out are voluntary by nature and have been
  established primarily by private actors - There are though few
  government-owned systems in place or under development (ex.
  Denmark, Germany and Italy)
• Most systems are ‘mixed’ i.e. they cover other aspects besides
  animal welfare (e.g. traceability, sustainability and health)
• Pigs, broilers and dairy cows are the species most frequently
  covered
• Fresh, frozen and processed meat are the product categories
  more frequently labelled

ARCADIA International                                        Page 9

Animal welfare labelling systems in the EU
 •    Functioning and design vary considerably across the systems
      studied. However, some commonalities can be identified:
       Single-tier systems are currently the most common;
       Efforts are made to ensure independence of audits; and
       The label’s standard is generally based on private rules, among others.
 • The systems assessed perform well in terms of scientific
   substantiation and transparency
 • More research needed to determine their effectiveness in
   terms of improving animal welfare, impact on food businesses
   and consumer understanding of animal production

ARCADIA International                                                      Page 10

Prospects for a mandatory EU-wide animal welfare label
•     EU business stakeholders do not support mandatory labelling with
      costs stemming from its implementation being their top concern
•     Most EU Member States are also in favour of a voluntary
      approach for similar reasons and also because of the challenges a
      mandatory approach would entail in terms of enforcement
•     Owners of existing labelling systems mostly fear losses in terms of
      commercial opportunities
•     Conversely, NGOs support it as a way to drive improvements in
      welfare practices and market transparency
•     At this stage a voluntary approach is likely to encounter a support
      from a wider stakeholder base

    ARCADIA International                                          Page 11

EPRS Research paper on
‘Implementation of EU legislation on ‘on
farm’ animal welfare.
Potential EU added value from the
introduction of animal welfare labelling
requirements at EU level
Presentation in AGRI Committee
13th July 2021                             Page 12