MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY COMPASSION IN
WORLD FARMING (S2)
INTRODUCTION
1. Compassion in World Farming (CIFW) welcomes
the fact that the House of Commons Agriculture Committee is investigating
the implications for UK agriculture and EU agricultural policy
of trade liberalisation and the WTO Round. MAFF have recently
issued a Consultation Document which states that the UK is actively
considering the issue of farm animal welfare as one of
the other issues "which might also be raised" in the
new Round. CIWF is disappointed that the Consultation Document:
(a) only says that farm animal welfare "might"
be raised. CIWF urges the UK and the EU to make a firm commitment
to raising this issue during the new Round;
(b) contains no recognition of the damage
being done to farm animal welfare by the WTO rules; and
(c) contains no detailed analysis of this
issue.
2. CIWF believes that it is essential that
the EU should only agree to a revised Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA) if the adverse impact of the WTO rules on farm animal welfare
(described below) are effectively addressed by the revised AoA.
THE DETRIMENTAL
IMPACT ON
FARM ANIMAL
WELFARE OF
THE WTO RULES
3. The WTO rules are having an increasingly
damaging effect on attempts to secure improved standards of animal
welfare.
4. Already two of the EU's key animal welfare
achievements—the prohibition on the import of furs from
countries using the leghold trap and the ban on the marketing
of cosmetics tested on animals— have largely been abandoned
because of fears that they could not survive a WTO challenge.
5. Moreover, WTO rules are making it increasingly
difficult for the EU (or any other WTO member) to introduce good
new animal welfare measures. It is true that the EU can prohibit
a cruel rearing system within its own territory. However, the
fact that under WTO rules it cannot prohibit the import
of meat derived from animals reared in that system in third countries
acts as a powerful disincentive to the EU prohibiting that system
within its own territory.
Battery cage for egg laying hens
6. CIWF welcomes the EU-wide phase out of
the battery cage contained in the Hens Directive agreed in June
1999. The Directive, however, contains a provision requiring it
to be reviewed in 2005 in the light of, among other things, the
outcome of the WTO negotiations.
7. If no progress is made on the animal
welfare issue during the new Round, there may be pressure from
EU egg producers for the phase out of the battery cage to be abandoned
or diluted. Clearly CIWF and the majority of the public would
be dismayed if the refusal of the WTO rules to allow the EU to
require imported eggs to adhere to the same welfare standards
as domestic eggs led to the battery cage phase out being undermined.
8. CIWF believes that the WTO rules must
be revised to allow the EU (and other WTO members) to distinguish
in their marketing and/or import regulations between battery eggs
and non-cage eggs. This is necessary both to safeguard EU animal
welfare standards and to provide a level playing field for EU
producers.
Sow stalls
9. With sow stalls having been prohibited
in the UK, UK farmers and animal welfare organisations are keen
to see them being phased out in the rest of the EU. Certainly
the science would support this; in its 1997 report the European
Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee made it clear that
sow stalls should be phased out on welfare grounds.
10. The EU may, however, be deterred from
so doing because of its inability, under the current interpretations
of WTO rules, to prohibit the import of pigmeat from third countries
which continued to use sow stalls.
NEED FOR
REFORM
11. It is clear from the above that the
WTO rules have already severely damaged EU attempts to improve
animal welfare (leghold traps and cosmetics) and are likely to
prevent other welfare reforms which are increasingly being sought
by UK and EU voters.
12. In the light of this, it is essential
that, during the negotiations on the AoA, the EU should insist
that:
(a) farm animal welfare must be included
among the "non-trade concerns" which under Article 20
of the AoA, must be taken into account during the negotiations
on agriculture in the next Round.
In this context, CIWF is disappointed that in
their recent Communication on the EU Approach to the new Round,
the Commission stated that, in the course of the planned negotiations,
there will be "the need to address certain new issues, which
could include animal welfare" [our italics]. It would
be preferable if the EU made a firm commitment to addressing animal
welfare as one of the "new issues".
We welcome the fact that the EU paper submitted
to Geneva in July includes animal welfare among the non-trade
concerns to be considered during the negotiations of a new AoA.
Also welcome is that paper's recognition of animal welfare as
a "legitimate moral requirement" and that it is "becoming
increasingly important to address this issue on a multi-lateral
basis".
CIWF is, however, disappointed that the only
solution suggested by the EU paper is to seek consensus on the
accommodation within the WTO rules of any trade measures taken
pursuant to any multi-lateral agreement on animal welfare standards
which may be reached. CIWF would, of course, welcome such a multi-lateral
agreement. We fear however that, in the light of the widely differing
views among WTO members of the importance of animal welfare, such
a multi-lateral agreement will take many years to negotiate and
is likely, at least initially, to have much lower standards than
those obtaining within the EU. In conclusion, whilst we believe
that the UK and EU should take the lead in trying to negotiate
a multi-lateral agreement, this should not be seen as a substitute
for trying to secure a solution to the animal welfare problem
within the context of the WTO.
(b) part of the package for a revised AoA
must include a resolution of the farm animal welfare problem.
In particular CIWF believes that the WTO rules must be reformed
to allow the EU (and other WTO members) to introduce trade-related
measures which are genuinely aimed at securing improved standards
of animal welfare. Where the EU adopts high welfare standards,
it should be able to prohibit the import of products derived from
animals which have not been reared to those high standards.
Details of desired reforms
13. Our detailed thinking as to the reforms
needed to address the animal welfare problem is as follows:
(i) Process and Production Methods: PPMs
At the core of the problem is the issue of PPMs.
As currently interpreted, the WTO rules prevent a WTO member's
marketing or import regulations from distinguishing between products
on the basis of PPMs if that distinction applies to imported as
well as to domestic products.
This is a major problem as nearly all attempts
to improve animal welfare are concerned with the way in which
animals are reared or treated.
Accordingly, we urge the UK to take the lead
in persuading our EU partners of the importance of making progress
on the PPM issue during the new Round. We believe that the position
on PPMs should be broadened to enable WTO members to make PPM
distinctions in their marketing and/or import regulations. Such
PPM distinctions would, of course, have to be non-discriminatory
and must not constitute a disguised restriction on trade. Related
guidelines could help to prevent PPM distinctions being made in
an arbitrary manner.
The Commission's recent Communication refers
to the need to clarify the relationship between WTO rules and
PPMs. This is welcome, although we note that the Commission refers
to this only within its section on "Trade and Environment".
We believe that the need to re-examine the PPM issue goes beyond
the environment and should include animal welfare and possibly
other ethical issues as well.
A helpful first step in the process of developing
the position on PPMs would be to secure recognition of the legitimacy
of mandatory labelling schemes. If such schemes are properly to
facilitate informed consumer choice, they should be applicable
to imported as well as to domestic products.
We would, however, emphasise that labelling is
only a partial solution. In some cases WTO members may also need,
in order to achieve legitimate policy goals, to make PPM distinctions
in their marketing and/or import regulations as well as in labelling
schemes.
(iii) Article XX of the GATT
Two changes to Article XX of the GATT would be
extremely helpful:
(a) Add "Animal Welfare" to
the General Exceptions
The General Exceptions set out in GATT Article XX
should be expanded to allow WTO members to take trade-related
measures designed "to protect the welfare of aninmals".
Article XX already permits WTO members to adopt measures
necessary to protect "animal life or health". "Welfare"
is a broader term than "health". Measures necessary
to protect animal "health" would be interpreted by some
as being confined to measures needed to prevent the spread of
animal diseases. The addition of the "welfare of animals"
to Article XX would make it clear that it was permissible for
WTO members to adopt measures aimed at protecting the well-being
of animals, for example, measures aimed at preventing cruel rearing
or slaughter practices.
(b) Change "Necessary to" to "Relating
to"
Article XX permits the adoption of measures "necessary
to" protect animal health. WTO dispute panels have given
a very narrow interpretation to "necessary". For a measure
to be "necessary", a WTO member must show that no alternative
measure which is consistent with—or less inconsistent with—GATT
rules is available.
A Memorandum of Understanding is needed to re-interpret
"necessary" in a less restrictive manner. Ideally "necessary
to" should be changed to "relating to the protection
of animal health or welfare". The term "relating to"
is already used in Article XX(g), which deals with measures relating
to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources. "Relating
to" has been interpreted as meaning "primarily aimed
at".
NEED TO
INCLUDE PAYMENTS
DESIGNED TO
PROMOTE HIGH
STANDARDS OF
FARM ANIMAL
WELFARE IN
"GREEN BOX"
14. The CAP Regulations permit Member States
and the European Commission to assist livestock producers with
the capital costs involved in changing from intensive to extensive
systems.
15. CIWF believes that such financial assistance
should be provided. If we as a society have re-thought the way
in which animals should be farmed, we should be willing to contribute
towards the costs of change. Farmers should not be left to bear
the expenditure alone; taxpayers should be prepared to share the
costs.
16. In the light of this, CIWF is disappointed
that to date the UK has refused to assist farmers with the capital
costs of change. We hope that the government will be prepared
to re-think its position on this issue.
17. If it does, it could run into difficulties
with Annex 2 of the AoA (this sets out the Green Box, i.e. those
payments which are excluded from the commitments to reduce subsidies).
As presently drafted, we fear that paragraph 12 of Annex 2—which
excludes payments under environmental programmes from the reduction
commitments—would not extend to payments designed to promote
high standards of farm animal welfare. We urge the EU to seek
an amendment to paragraph 12 to include such payments; it should
be made clear beyond doubt that payments to promote good welfare
are include in the Green Box.
TARIFF RATES
18. As the MAFF Consultation Document points
out, even after the cuts agreed in the AoA, most tariffs remain
high enough to preclude imports. This means that where the EU
adopts high welfare standards it can use import tariffs to prevent
third country meat and eggs produced to lower welfare standards
from undermining EU producers.
19. CIWF believes it is essential for the
EU to consider the impact on animal welfare of further tariff
reductions as these are being negotiated during the new
Round in order to ensure that such reductions do not make it even
more difficult for the EU to maintain and improve domestic standards.
Specifically, the EU should only enter into fresh commitments
to reduce tariffs if it has been provided with some mechanism
to prevent meat and eggs produced to lower welfare standards than
those required in the EU from entering the EU.
Differential tariff rates
20. We urge the EU to press for the revised
AoA to permit WTO members to encourage good welfare by offering
reduced tariff rates for imports derived from animals reared to
high welfare standards. For example, the EU's position during
the next Round could be that it is willing to agree no or only
a modest reduction in tariff rates for eggs in general, while
agreeing a much greater reduction for non-cage eggs.
EXPORT REFUNDS
21. CIWF believes that export refunds must
be ended in the light of the damage they impose both on developing
countries and animal welfare.
22. In most years around 500,000 live cattle
are exported from the EU (mainly from Germany, Ireland and France)
to the Middle East and North Africa. This trade is generously
subsidised by export refunds; in most years around £200 million
is paid out in refunds to promote these live exports. The suffering
experienced by animals during the long journeys together with
the extremely cruel unloading and slaughter methods often used
in the Middle East makes this one of the world's cruellest live
export trades.
23. This trade would, however, disappear
or at least be substantially reduced if the export refunds which
make it attractive were to be removed.
NEED TO
AVOID FURTHER
PRESSURES TO
GREATER INTENSIFICATION
24. Some aspects of the AoA have had the
effect of promoting intensification, thereby driving down animal
welfare standards. The improved market access resulting from the
AoA makes it difficult for a WTO member to discourage the import
of cheap meat and eggs derived from animal husbandry systems with
poor welfare standards. Such imports exert pressure on EU producers
to intensify (a process which invariably has an adverse impact
on animal welfare) in order to compete with low welfare imports.
CIWF believes it is essential that the EU should
not agree to any new commitments in the Millennium Round which
would exacerbate the pressure on EU producers to intensify.
14 September 1999
| 
