ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS
171. Another 'public good' which might be purchased
from farmers by public expenditure is improved animal welfare
standards. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 has
prompted a number of questions about the way in which livestock
are farmed in the United Kingdom.[314]
The RSPCA told us that it felt that the outbreak had provided
"a welcome opportunity to reassess the future direction of
British agriculture". To that end, it drew up a Ten Point
Plan for sustainable welfare-friendly agriculture.[315]
Compassion in World Farming argued that "in the wake of the
foot and mouth disease crisis, substantial reforms are needed
to help prevent the crises which beset United Kingdom farming
with some regularity".[316]
172. Both organisations called for animal welfare
issues to be fully addressed in the forthcoming Mid-Term Review
of the CAP Agenda 2000 agreement. The RSPCA pointed out that although
the European Union is calling for green box payments to reward
animal welfare in the World Trade Organisation, it has not proposed
any CAP mechanisms to do so.[317]
Compassion in World Farming argued that Pillar II measures could
be used to encourage high animal welfare and it advocated:
- an animal welfare impact assessment - to
prevent the implementation of CAP policies or subsidies that would
have a detrimental impact on animal welfare (the RSPCA called
for this too[318]);
- a farm animal welfare scheme - offering help
with capital costs and possibly transitional aid for farmers changing
from "factory farming to extensive husbandry systems";
- land management contracts which include animal
welfare requirements;
- discouraging long-distance transporting of
farm animals.[319]
Explaining how the green box could be used to encourage
high animal welfare may help to demonstrate to our negotiating
partners that the policy is addressing a particular demand from
society and is not a means of agricultural protection. However,
concern about whether or not meat and animal products produced
to lower animal welfare standards would be able to be sold in
the European market is not being addressed through such an approach.
173. It has been argued that, given that the European
Union internal market is still protected against foreign competition
by considerable tariff barriers, particularly for livestock and
livestock products, and that market prices are above those prevailing
outside the European Union, there is already a justification (and
implicitly compensation to farmers) for delivering higher animal
welfare standards across the European Union. If such an approach
is followed now, there must be discussion about how those higher
standards can be maintained as European Union tariff barriers
are reduced.
174. Compassion in World Farming argued that society
must "let go of the cheap food policy, which is what has
fuelled factory farming".[320]
To a large extent, as we were told in the context of environmental
degradation, the cause of poor animal welfare standards has been
the direction in which agricultural price support policy has led
farmers. This is particularly apparent in the reflection of Erhard
Schwinne of the German Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection,
Food and Agriculture: "another aspect is animal welfare.
In Germany, if you go to the countryside, you rarely see animals.
I grew up in the mountains, and I remember when the weather permitted
following the winter there were always animals in the meadows
and the fields. Nowadays they are kept in barns and they rarely
see the light. When the door is opened they may see the light".[321]
175. In New Zealand we were told that high farm animal
welfare was increasingly demanded by customers and therefore it
was being addressed through the marketplace. In the United Kingdom
we frequently hear the comment that consumers call for high animal
welfare in surveys outside shops but then buy on price inside
them. Professor Hughes told us that "we have to be careful
to make sure that what we perceive to be market signals, like
more animal welfare ... are actual market signals and not signals
from very well organised and very powerful lobby groups, who if
we do not watch it, can get ahead of the market".[322]
Animal welfare concerns can rightly be addressed through policy
mechanisms; but, if society is really concerned about the issues
there will also be responses in the marketplace. These are best
facilitated through obligations to provide better consumer information
instore and on labels.
176. The document tabled by Commissioner Fischler
in July 2002 to instigate the Mid-Term Review process seeks to
"integrate ... animal welfare fully into the CAP".[323]
It proposes that farm income payments be made conditional on meeting
set standards, including animal welfare standards. It also puts
forward plans to permit agri-environmental rural development payments
(under Pillar II) in order for farmers to improve levels of animal
welfare. We comment briefly on these matters in Chapter 6, and
will examine these proposals in detail when we report on the Mid-Term
Review later in the year.
314 See for example the following press articles: Rethink
on cheap food policies, The Guardian, 2 March 2001, p. 9;
The real sickness in our countryside, Independent on Sunday,
18 March 2001, p. 23; Farming must cull its bad practices,
Evening Standard, 20 March 2001, p. 13; and We must review
the future of agriculture, our last great nationalised industry,
The Independent, 5 April 2001, p. 3. Back
315
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, Ev 357, para 1. Back
316
Memorandum submitted by Compassion in World Farming, Ev 336. Back
317
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, Ev 360, para 16. Back
318
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, Ev 360, para 17. Back
319
Memorandum submitted by Compassion in World Farming, Ev 339-Ev
340. Back
320
Memorandum submitted by Compassion in World Farming, Ev 336. Back
321
Evidence taken on 17 April 2002, Ev 226, Q.818. Back
322
Evidence taken on 6 February 2002, Ev 43, Q.191. Back
323
See http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/1026|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=. Back
| 
