14. WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS IN THIRD
COUNTRIES
(24021)
14634/02
COM(02) 626
|
Commission Communication on animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in third countries and the implications for the EU.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 18 November 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 26 November 2002
|
| Department: | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 11 December 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| To be discussed in Council: | 16-19 December 2002
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 Because of increasing consumer concerns about the
welfare of animals used in food production, the Community has
introduced a range of measures in recent years, covering such
areas as transport, the rearing of pregnant sows in stalls, and
the conditions under which laying hens are kept. At the same time,
there have also been concerns that, to the extent Community producers
incur costs as a result of such measures which cannot be recovered
fully from consumers, they may be placed at a competitive disadvantage
in relation to imports from third countries where comparable standards
do not apply, particularly as World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules
do not allow the trade in goods to be restricted according to
the method of production. As a result, Council Directive 98/58/EC[45]
on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes requires
the Commission to provide a Communication comparing the legislation
in other countries with that in the Community and exploring the
legislative and competitive implications.
The current document
14.2 The current document sets out the results of a survey
carried out by the Commission's Directorate-General for Health
and Consumer Protection (SANCO), which contacted the main countries
supplying the Community with live animals and farmed products.
It says that replies were received from 73 countries, but that
the variable quality of the information provided and the diversity
of conditions in the countries concerned made it difficult to
draw concrete conclusions. However, the Communication goes on
to make a number of broad observations, as follows:
- The bulk of the information sent related to animals in general,
and there was relatively little specific reference to farmed animals.
In the vast majority of cases, individual acts of cruelty are
deemed ethically unacceptable, but there is little evidence
of convergence of legislation worldwide on the basis of shared
principles, and there is also a lack of shared scientific
standards. A further consideration is that definitions of
animal protection vary according to the cultural, scientific,
religious, economic and political context. The Communication notes
that, in the absence of such shared standards, most of the legislation
refers to the "five freedoms"[46]
defined by the UK's Farm Animal Welfare Council.
- Despite this, there has been significant progress, especially
in the last five years, as a result of media campaigns and
lobbying by non-governmental organisations. The enlargement process
has also provided an incentive for the candidate countries to
adopt Community welfare standards.
- Animal welfare measures are either mandatory or self-imposed.
In the former case, legislation tends to lay down general measures
governing care and treatment, but not specific provisions on farming
methods, such as stocking densities. In the majority of countries,
however, the emphasis is on private, voluntary initiatives, with
a wide variety of codes and guidelines, often developed in collaboration
with the relevant public authorities, and designed to bolster
consumer confidence. A further, and increasing, factor is the
perceived need among producers and retailers to provide consumers
with extra value through quality assurance schemes, and to avoid
produce acquiring a poor safety or welfare image.
- The steps taken by the Community have provided an example
for other countries to follow, as for example in the adoption
by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) of transport
measures based on current Community legislation. The Communication
suggests that this trend could be further encouraged through development
programmes.
14.3 The rest of the Communication considers the implications
for future action by the Community. It highlights the established
link between the welfare of animals and their health and general
well-being, and the increasing recognition that animal welfare
is a constituent part of product image and quality, creating a
need for reliable systems for on-farm monitoring. It also recalls
the need identified in its own White Paper on Food Safety for
a comprehensive integrated approach to food safety covering not
just the food chain, but also the Community's external interface
and involvement in international fora.
14.4 The Communication next addresses the ways in which
an international consensus might be obtained. It says that the
current WTO rules would leave open to challenge an attempt by
the Community to make the application of its own animal welfare
standards a condition for the importation of products from third
countries, but points out that, despite this, last year's Doha
conclusions did see some progress, with non-trade concerns, including
animal welfare, being placed on the agenda for future agricultural
negotiations. It therefore wants the Community on ethical and
economic grounds to build on this development, both within the
WTO and through other avenues. It suggests that the latter might
include establishing standards multilaterally through OIE, by
including animal welfare provisions within its Animal Health Code
(which the Commission sees as playing a similar role in this area
to Codex Alimentarius in the field of food safety), or through
the negotiation of bilateral agreements.
14.5 Other steps suggested include the encouragement
of efforts to research links between animal welfare and the health
and quality of foodstuffs (and to reflect this in Community legislation),
and the labelling of foodstuffs to show the method of production,
either on a mandatory basis (as in the provisions which the Council
has adopted on eggs), or voluntarily (where the Commission suggests
that mutual recognition of schemes with third countries would
be desirable). Finally, the Communication refers to the extent
to which the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP seek to encourage
more market oriented measures by decoupling subsidies from production,
and the emphasis placed in its mid-term review on promoting wider
goals such as animal welfare. It says that subsidies paid to compensate
for additional costs incurred due to higher welfare standards
should legitimately be exempted from subsidy-reduction commitments
within the WTO where these have no trade-distorting effects, and
that priority should be given to assessing the impact of welfare
measures on the cost of end products.
The Government's view
14.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 December 2002,
the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) says
that, although well written, the Communication says nothing new,
for example in relation to the lack of convergence of legislation
worldwide and the lack of shared scientific standards. It has
nevertheless been welcomed by the Government, which has noted
the findings, and the recognition of the need to address any distortion
of competition through highlighting and encouraging higher animal
welfare standards in third countries. The Minister says that the
UK also welcomes the inclusion of non-trade concerns in the future
Doha agriculture negotiations, but agrees with the Commission
that, because of the difficulties this is likely to present, parallel
attempts should be made to promote such concerns in other international
fora, including in particular OIE.
14.7 As regards the remaining aspects of the Communication,
the Minister says that the UK supports encouraging efforts to
research the links between welfare, health and the quality of
foodstuffs, and that OIE has a role to play in this: and he points
out that the Government is committed to ensuring that food is
clearly and effectively labelled to enable consumers to make informed
decisions. The UK also agrees that direct payments to producers
for animal welfare standards need to be WTO compatible, and supports
the call for the development of models to evaluate the additional
costs of welfare requirements. He says that the Government will
consider in detail, once the Commission has published its legislative
proposals, the introduction of cross-compliance conditions linking
animal welfare standards to CAP payments.
Conclusion
14.8 As the Commission itself acknowledges, this Communication
does not reach any specific conclusions, and in the main covers
familiar ground. Nevertheless, it is of interest, and, in clearing
it, we think it right to draw it to the attention of the House.
45
OJ No. L.221, 8.8.98, p.23. Back
46
Proper and sufficient food and water; adequate shelter; the opportunity
to display normal patterns of behaviour; minimisation of pain
or distress during handling; and protection from disease. Back
|
