EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0056
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SEC/2012/0056 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT /* SEC/2012/0056 final */
1.
Policy context
1.1.
Definition, aims and scope
The World Organisation for Animal Health
defines animal welfare: " (…) An animal is in a good state of
welfare if (…) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to
express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states
such as pain, fear and distress". The aims, principles and scope of the animal
welfare policy of the European Union (EU) derive from Article 13 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the EU. This article does not provide a legal basis for protecting animals. However, it
creates the obligation of the Member States and of the Union to ensure that the
welfare requirements of animals are considered within the framework of certain EU
policies.
1.2.
Sectors concerned
The farming sector uses around 2 billion birds and
334 million mammals per year. An estimated 12 million animals per year are used
for experimentation. There are around 120 million dogs and cats mainly kept for
leisure. Livestock farming in the EU represents a value
of 149 billion euros. In addition, the use of experimental animals is estimated
to have an overall value of 930 million euros a year. The number of people handling animals in the
context of an economic activity can be estimated at around 4 million, being mainly
farmers.
1.3.
The EU policy on animal welfare
EU policy on animal welfare has developed
legislative and non-legislative tools. The main body of EU legislation on
animal welfare applies to food producing animals (calves, pigs, poultry,
transport and slaughter) and to animals used for experimental purposes.
Non-legislative tools include the EU funding of animal welfare through the rural
development fund of the Common Agriculture Policy and the EU funding for research,
international, communication and training activities. In 2006, the Commission adopted a Community
Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010[1]. The 2006 Action Plan was the
first document to merge in a single text the different aspects of EU policy on
animal welfare.
1.4.
References and consultations
In December 2009, the Commission asked for an
external evaluation of EU policy on animal welfare. Stakeholders were
extensively consulted during the evaluation and the impact assessment process. They
comprise the economic sectors using animals, animal welfare organisations and
scientists working on animal welfare.
2.
Problem definition
2.1.
Animal welfare problems and drivers
The welfare of certain categories of animals is
routinely compromised in the EU: for example, piglets have their tails cut off
and are castrated without anaesthesia etc. The Council also pointed out welfare
problems related to the breeding and the trade of dogs and cats. Each animal
welfare problem has specific drivers. However, there are a number of common
drivers: 1. Lack of enforcement by the Member
States of the EU legislation is common in a number of areas. Some Member
States do not take sufficient measures to inform stakeholders, train official
inspectors, perform checks, and apply sanctions. For this reason, important pieces
of EU legislation have not been fully applied and did not have the intended
effects on the welfare of animals. In addition, better welfare standards sometimes
imply additional costs for producers. In many instances, business operators who
comply, anticipate or go beyond EU animal welfare rules are not rewarded by
additional economic benefits. 2. Consumers' lack of appropriate
information on animal welfare. There is a limited market for products with
animal welfare attributes. An EU-wide survey shows that animal welfare is an
issue for 64 % of the population. However, studies show that concern for
animal welfare is only one of the factors affecting the consumer choice. 3. There is a lack of knowledge of
what animal welfare means among stakeholders dealing with animals. It has
had an effect on the conception of modern production methods. The lack of
knowledge among operators and public officials about alternative practices
often leads to resistance to changes for more friendly systems of production. 4. The lack of specific EU legislation
and guidance makes it difficult to ensure adequate welfare conditions for
some categories of animals (some farmed species or dogs and cats).
2.2.
Baseline scenario
Member States are monitored by Commission
experts. They have no mandate to inspect and sanction businesses but to
determine whether competent authorities are doing so. Inspections are carried
out with regard to specific EU legislation applicable to farm animals. The
Commission may initiate legal proceedings against a Member State in the case of
infringements. Enforcement initiatives are demanding in human
resources and limited in their impact on competent authorities. Therefore the
current EU policy is able to address critical enforcement issues, but is
limited in scope. Regarding the economical aspects, EU policy
provides some instruments to compensate producers for higher production costs.
Transitional periods have not proved to be very successful. On the consumer
side, with the exception of eggs, there is no EU instrument that could empower
consumers to express a choice in favour of more animal welfare friendly
products. The EU has developed initiatives to address the
lack of knowledge of stakeholders on animal welfare. Competence requirements
for animal handlers have been progressively introduced in EU legislation.
However, such requirements do not encompass all animals concerned. The EU has
funded research projects on animal welfare with an average of 15 million euros per
year. However, there is a need for more efforts in dissemination research
results and translation into practical tools. The current EU policy does not address a number
of animal welfare issues. The EU could continue to decide adopting specific
pieces of legislation on a case-by-case basis. However such sector-specific
approach is unlikely to address common drivers.
2.3.
Subsidiarity test
Some Member States insist on keeping the
possibility of maintaining their own animal welfare policy. The Union has
progressively adopted several pieces of legislation on animal welfare to avoid
internal market disruptions due to differences in national legislation. The justification of such scope is based on the
fact that the competitiveness of economic activities related to animals is
affected by the level of animal welfare requirements. Harmonising requirements
at EU level provides for those cases, an added value in establishing a common
set of rules for businesses concerned.
3.
Objectives
The objectives of the new strategy on animal
welfare are as follows: –
Objective 1: to improve enforcement of
the EU legislation; –
Objective 2: to provide for open and fair
competition for EU business operators; –
Objective 3: to improve knowledge and
awareness of EU business operators regarding animal welfare; –
Objective 4: to improve the coherence of
animal welfare across animal species.
4.
Options
Each option focuses on one or more specific
objectives: –
Option 1: Strengthening Member States'
compliance (EU non-regulatory action) Option 1 will contain the following
initiatives: –
Increase the number of audit missions in the
Member States and third countries; –
Strengthen inter-governmental cooperation to
promote better enforcement; –
Organise workshops with stakeholders on specific
animal welfare issues; –
Develop EU guidelines for species covered by the
European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes; –
Increase the participation in the training
initiative Better Training for Safer Food. In this scenario, the EU legislative setting
will remain unchanged. Existing rules may be updated or new rules adopted on an
ad hoc basis. –
Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes
(Sector self-regulation) Option 2 will contain the following
initiatives: –
A legal framework for benchmarking certification
schemes with animal welfare claims; –
Communication campaigns for informing consumers; –
Prioritizing of EU actions on animal welfare at
international level. The Commission will propose a legal framework
to create market opportunities for voluntary certification schemes containing
animal welfare claims. Such framework will allow certification schemes to be
registered at EU level. The registration will result in the preliminary
establishment of an EU benchmark. In this scenario, a new legislative act will be
proposed but the rest of the EU legislative setting will remain unchanged.
Existing rules may be updated or new rules adopted on an ad hoc basis. –
Option 3: Establishing a European network of
reference centres (specific EU legislation) In this scenario, the Commission will propose
to establish a network of reference centres on the basis of a model that exist
in the field of animal health. This network will consolidate existing
scientific national resources on animal welfare. The role of this network will
not duplicate the role of the European Food Safety Authority and the activity
of the Joint Research Centre of the EU. Each centre will have the following roles: –
Coordinate at EU level and carry out research on
EU relevant themes; –
Provide scientific and technical expertise to
competent authorities on the EU legislation; –
Disseminate research findings and innovations to
EU stakeholders and among the international scientific community; –
Coordinate at EU level the listing and the
evaluation of professional training activities related to animal welfare. –
Option 4: Streamlining requirements for
competence and using animal welfare indicators (General Framework Law) This option will be a legislative proposal for
a general EU law on animal welfare to simplify requirements already laid down
in certain pieces of EU legislation as follows: –
Requirements for competence will be integrated
in a single and more precise common text; –
The possibility of using animal welfare
indicators will be introduced as an alternative to compliance with the legislation. This will involve replacing Directive 98/58
(umbrella directive for all farmed animals) with the new law. Option 4 will be limited to the categories of
animals presently covered by specific pieces of legislation. –
Option 4+: Investigating the possibility of
extending the scope of Option 4 Option 4+ will study the relevance of extending
the scope of the Option 4 to other animals where animal welfare problems have
been identified.
5.
Impact analysis
In no case none of the options will have
negative impact on fundamental rights and more specifically on the freedom of
religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation on the protection of
animals at the time of slaughter or killing.
5.1.
Impacts of Option 1
The impact of Option 1 to improve enforcement
is expected to be fairly positive (++) but limited in certain problem areas. The impact of Option 1 to provide for open and
fair competition for EU producers is expected to be positive (+) but
limited because it does not contribute to help the consumer in identifying
animal welfare friendly products. The organisation of workshops with stakeholders
on specific enforcement problems have been positively used in the past. The
impact of Option 1 to improve knowledge of stakeholders is therefore expected
to be slightly positive (+). The impact of Option 1 is expected to be
neutral (0) to improve consistency across animal species. The impact on the EU budget is expected
to be slightly negative (-) or neutral (0) if the necessary resources are
reallocated from other activities. Option 1 is unanimously supported by all
stakeholders.
5.2.
Impacts of Option 2
The increased economic value developed by
Option 2 could encourage operators to higher animal welfare standards.
Therefore, the impact of Option 2 to improve enforcement is expected to be
slightly positive (+). The establishment of an EU wide benchmarking
system for EU registered schemes will increase the opportunities for EU
producers to obtain better prices for improved standards on animal welfare. Therefore,
the impact of Option 2 is expected to be very positive to provide for open and
fair competition for EU business operators (+++). With Option 2, business operators are likely to
become more responsible on animal welfare. Therefore the impact of Option 2 to
improve knowledge of business operators is expected to be slightly positive
(+). Option 2 possesses the potential for addressing
certain animal welfare problems not covered by the EU legislation but unlikely
to address the worst practices. Therefore, the impact of Option 2 on improving
the consistency across animal species is expected to be slightly positive (+). Option 2 has also a potential of blurring the
distinction between enforcement of legislation and private standards.
Transparency for consumers is however necessary and if a system should be
designed, this aspect should be carefully considered. Option 2 is expected to require additional
financial resources mainly to promote the new benchmarking to consumers and to
increase international activities. The impact of Option 2 on the EU budget
is expected to be slightly negative (-). Option 2 has been positively received by
most stakeholders.
5.3.
Impacts of Option 3
Option 3 will contribute to better enforcement by
providing technical assistance to competent authorities and business operators.
However, it is unlikely to reach the producers that might need the most
assistance. Therefore, the impact of Option 3 on improved enforcement is
expected to be slightly positive (+). Through more investment on applied research,
Option 3 is expected to have positive effects on the competitiveness of EU
producers. It may also assist them in developing certification schemes.
Therefore the impact of Option 3 on providing for open and fair competition is
expected to be slightly to fairly positive (+ to ++) depending on the level
of funding available. Increasing funding for EU research projects
contributes to raising awareness among stakeholders on animal welfare. Therefore,
the impact of Option 3 on the knowledge of business operators is expected to
be fairly positive (++). Option 3 is expected to be neutral (0) to
slightly positive (+) in improving consistency across animal species. The impact of Option 3 on the EU budget
is expected to be slightly negative (-). There is a general support of Option 3 from
all stakeholders in particular from the European
Parliament.
5.4.
Impacts of Option 4
Requirements for competence for animal handlers
are expected to contribute to better enforcement. Using animal welfare
indicators to reach compliance will allow flexibility in the implementation of
certain provisions and hence facilitate enforcement. Due to the large scope of
the measure, the impact of Option 4 for improving enforcement is therefore
expected to be fairly positive (++). Option 4 will entail training costs for
business operators. However, it will also have positive long-term effects on
their competitiveness. In addition, Option 4 will allow the use of animal
welfare indicators which may decrease other compliance costs. Therefore the impact of Option 4 to provide
for open and fair competition is expected to be slightly negative (-) to
neutral (0) depending on the potential benefits brought by additional
training and the introduction of animal based indicators in compensating
training costs. Requirements for competence will increase
knowledge of operators. As the measure is compulsory it will have a much
broader effect than Option 3. The impact of Option 4 is therefore expected
to be very positive (+++) at improving the knowledge of business operators
on animal welfare. Option 4 will have no impact on improving
consistency across animal species (0). Stakeholders unanimously consider that
educating workers has very positive and long-lasting effects on the welfare of
animals. Stakeholders are divided on the use of
animal-based indicators. Producers fear excessive administrative burden while
animal welfare organisations doubt that it could replace efficiently
prescriptive measures.
5.5.
Option 4+
Impacts on Objectives 1, 2 and 3 have not been
considered relevant while the impact on Objective 4 is expected to be slightly
to fairly positive (+/++) depending on the possible follow-up actions that the
studies will imply.
6.
Comparison of the options
Overall, the options complement each other. Option
4 is powerful in addressing important objectives because it creates obligations
for all operators concerned. However it brings compliance costs that may
affect competitiveness. It does not address the economic drivers. A combination
of Option 2 and 3 would much better address this aspect and would be mutually
supportive. Overall, Option 3 appears to be the most
cost efficient option as it contains a good compromise between moderate
costs and a broad range of effects on the main drivers.
7.
Preferred option
There is no single option that it is able to
address all problems effectively and efficiently. The preferred option will
therefore be a policy mix as follows: 1. To explore the possibility of a
simplified EU legislative framework that will include: –
a framework to improve transparency and adequacy
of information to consumers on animal welfare, –
the establishment of a network of reference
centres, –
the integration of requirement for competence in
a single text (with a transitional period to decrease compliance costs), –
the possibility to use outcome based animal welfare
indicators. 2. Develop tools for strengthening Member
States' compliance with EU rules; 3. Support international cooperation; 4. Provide consumers and the public with
appropriate information; 5. Investigate on the welfare of animals
not covered by specific EU rules.
8.
Monitoring and evaluation
A number of elements are already in place that
could provide useful monitoring tools for the future. A number of possible
indicators are listed in the report. It seems appropriate to plan another
evaluation at the end of the strategy (2016). [1] COM(2006)13 final.