Animal Welfare EU Strategy 2011-2015

1. Animal WelfareEU Strategy 2011-2015

2. Introduction • Community Action Plan 2006-2010 The Commission's commitment to EU citizens, stakeholders, the EP and the Council for a clear map of the Commission’s planned animal welfare initiatives for the coming years • Paulsen’s report: May 2010 The EP gave its opinion on the 2006 Action Plan by adopting the Paulsen Report. The rapporteur considers that the new action plan should focus on: • a general European animal welfare law; • a European centre for animal welfare and animal health; - better enforcement of existing legislation; - the link between animal health and public health.

3. Introduction • Evaluation on the EU policy on animal welfare - In November 2009, the Commission mandated an external consultant to evaluate the EU policy on Animal Welfare - The evaluation was completed in December 2010 and will be used as a basis for a future EU Strategy on the protection and welfare of animals 2011-2015

4. Introduction The Commission (DG SANCO) is preparing a second EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2011-2015, which is foreseen to be adopted in December 2011.

5. Indicative time frame • January-March: MS and SH consultations • April: Finalization of impact assessment • September- October: Inter-service consultation • December: Adoption

6. The Commission organized a meeting with the Member States on 17th January and with the main EU stakeholders 31st January 2011 to: • present the result of the evaluation on the EU policy for animal welfare • present the possible policy options for the future strategy

7. Evaluation on the EU policy on animal welfare • Online consultation – 9,086 responses • Stakeholder interviews – 89 interviews with 196 individuals • National missions – 12 Member States • Literature and data review • Answers to 11 evaluation questions

8. Main outcomes of the evaluation on the EU-PAW • Q1: To what extent has EU animal welfare legislation achieved its main objective (i.e. to improve the welfare conditions of animals within the EU?) • Legislation has improved welfare for those animals covered by targeted legislation • There is potential to achieve much higher standards by strengthening the enforcement of current EU legislation

9. Main outcomes of the evaluation on the EUPAW • Q2: To what extent has EU legislation on the protection of animals ensured proper functioning of the single market for the activities concerned? - EU animal welfare legislation has contributed to, but not fully ensured, the proper functioning of the internal market - Harmonisation is important in order to avoid competitive distortions within the internal market - Specific EU animal welfare legislation has improved the harmonisation of animal welfare standards across the EU - Factors affecting harmonisation are: a lack of clarity, variations in enforcement, and standards that go beyond EU law

10. Main outcomes of the evaluation on the EUPAW • Q10: To what extent do animal welfare policies contribute to the economic sustainability of the sectors concerned • Widely accepted that animal welfare policies increase costs of businesses in the farming sectors (estimated additional annual costs of €2.8 billion for farm animals), • Higher standards have business benefits, though usually outweighed by costs

11. Problem definition • Enforcement • Competitiveness of farmers • Communication to consumers and stakeholders • Science and innovation • Scope of EU legislation

12. Enforcement • Member States problem but…needs EU supervision • Lack of awareness and training of parties concerned • Conflicts with economic interests • Complexity and rigidity of the legislation

13. Competitiveness of farmers • Animal welfare additional costs • EU standards not sufficiently known by consumers • No equivalent standards in third countries competing with EU producers

14. Communication to consumers and stakeholders • 64% consumers are worried for animal welfare (EU average) • No information for most products • Most private schemes under 20% market share (national level) • Stakeholders not sufficiently informed on what to do

15. Objectives of the future strategy • Level of animal protection close to the citizens’ concern • Competitiveness in the EU market • Consistency between EU and TC

16. Policy options • No action • We do more with same tools (non legislative option) • We do differently (legislative options) - Framework law and co-regulation - Prescriptive regulation

17. Non legislative (option A) • Communication and education, • Corporate Social Responsibility, • Research, • Improved coordination, • International initiatives. No new law but increased resources.

18. Legislative options Framework law and co-regulation = Animal welfare law (Option B) • More participative (voluntary and compulsory standards) • Animal welfare indicators (for monitoring procedures) • Wider scope (Cows? Rabbits? Etc)

19. Legislative options Prescriptive regulation (Option C) • Vertical directives by species • European Network of Reference Centres • Applied research (dissemination) • Education and training • New financial instruments • Common penalties

20. Stakeholders’ opinions and data • SH understanding and opinion on the options (how you see the option working) • SH data and experiences in relation to the options • SH assessment on the possible impacts listed (qualitative and quantitative) • SH priorities