Objectives - Meeting 28-30th Nov Meeting and webcast on rearing pigs with intact tails in Europe Terry Cassidy, Des Maguire Unit F2, Animal Health and Welfare Directorate for Health and Food Safety

What are the meeting objectives? Explain Commission objectives of Pig Project Provide an update on Member States' implementation of Dir 2008/120/EC Clarify what Commission expects of Member States' action plans Provide a platform for sharing best practice and exchanging views Terry will explain the objectives of the pig project in the next slide We will give an overview of OUR assessment of MS implementation based upon a number of information sources. We have written to MS to ask for better implementation of existing requirements of dirs 2008/120 and 98/58. We are asking MS to provide plans to take concrete, measureable actions in 2018 All information, presentation, minutes from the meeting will be made publicly available on CIRCABC and this Webcast is publicly available for 2 years.

Commission objectives of Pig Project Reduce animal suffering by improving the application of Council Directives 98/58/EC & 2008/120/EC over a three year period Specific focus on the avoidance of routine tail docking and the provision of enrichment material

Improving the application of Council Directives 98/58/EC & 2008/120/EC 98/58 Article 3: take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. 2008/120 Article 4: Member States shall ensure conditions in Annex I, including points 4 and 8 of Chapter I: Provision of enrichment material Avoidance of routine tail docking Article 4: Member States to ensure- how? Highlight the important points in relation to point 4: provision of enrichment material: Notwithstanding Article 3(5), pigs must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities, such as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such, which does not compromise the health of the animals. Recommendation and SWD give good guidance on this: MS responsibility. Explain the important points in relation to point 8 on tail-docking: highlighted below “Neither tail-docking nor reduction of corner teeth must be carried out routinely but only where there is evidence that injuries to sows’ teats or to other pigs’ ears or tails have occurred. Before carrying out these procedures, other measures shall be taken to prevent tail-biting and other vices, taking into account environment and stocking densities. For this reason inadequate environmental conditions or management systems must be changed.”

Member States' implementation of Dir 2008/120 COM assessment: 2 Questionnaires 2016/2017 4 audits 2017 Results of previous audits Results of other studies/reports Questionnaires to all MS, almost all replied, questionnaire with FVE to pig vet societies and industry Audits to NL, ES, DK, IT, DE in 2018 Previous audit series and Gas since 2000s PETI report to EP, NGO reports, feedback from other sources, EFSA, other research, FAREWELL doc, Welfare quality etc, etc.

MS progress on avoidance of tail docking No progress: 14 MS Research and advice to farmers: 8MS Procedures for risk assessment: 4 MS CA enforcement initiatives: 2 MS Tail docking ban: 2 MS Research and advice to farmers: Research projects, Guidance on risk factors (other than link to COM REC) Procedures for RA: All are voluntary protocols / programs! DE has SchwIP, DK has SEGES manual, GB has WebHAT. No idea what PT has but they presented some (very basic) results so we were generous to them. CA enforcement initiatives: DK has updated their guidelines on enrichment and tail docking to include RA, not good enough yet, but close . LT says that procedures for official controls are updated according to COM REC – however we haven't seen them.

What does COM expect MS to do? Set clear Compliance Criteria for legal requirements of 2008/120 and 98/58 related to environmental and management factors for tail biting These compliance criteria can be resource based or animal based (ideally a combination of both) and should enable inspectors to assess compliance with legal minimum requirements (as far as they relate to enrichment material, cleanliness, thermal comfort and air quality, competition for food and space, health and diet) and therefore form a solid enforcement basis to justify correction actions or sanctions imposed on farmers.

What does COM expect MS to do? Provide clear guidance to inspectors to assess compliance with legal provisions on tail docking with regard to: evidence of tail and ear lesions Farm improvement measures to change inadequate environmental conditions or management systems Provide guidance for inspectors to assess if farmers comply with the provision on tail-docking as laid down in the second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of Council Directive 2008/120/EC. This means that clear assessment criteria should be provided regarding a) what consists sufficient evidence of tail and ear lesions and b) what consist sufficient improvement measures by farmers to change inadequate environmental conditions or managements systems before resorting to tail-docking of pigs. This entails the development of measurable criteria (in addition to or going beyond the compliance criteria for minimum legal requirement mentioned in previous slide) to enable inspectors to properly assess progress with regard to the risk factors listed in the Commission Recommendation 2016/336. These "assessment criteria" should enable inspectors to assess if sufficient and adequate measures have been taken by to farmers and must therefore relate to best practices and not to legal minimum requirements!

Example 1: Compliance Criteria and Improvement Measures Parameter Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 Legal requirement Directive 2008/120/EC, 98/58/EC Compliance criteria for legal requirements example DE (gas concentrations) What can be considered sufficient improvement measures going beyond legal minimum requirements? Thermal comfort and air quality “air circulation, dust levels, temperature, relative air humidity and gas concentrations must be kept within limits which are not harmful to the animals” (Directive 98/58/EC Annex 1, 10) NH3 < 20 ppm CO2 < 3000 ppm SH2 < 5 ppm   Regular (at least biannual) checks on climate parameters and ventilation system by external expert NH3 < 10 ppm CO2 < 2000 ppm SH2 < 3 ppm Ideally combined with assessment of animal based indicators

Example 2: Compliance Criteria and Improvement Measures Parameter Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 Legal requirement Directive 2008/120/EC, 98/58/EC Compliance criteria for legal minimum requirements example DK What can be considered sufficient improvement measures going beyond legal minimum requirements? Enrichment material “permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities” (Directive 2008/120/EC Annex 1, Chapter 1, 4) Guidance on: Suitable materials: Straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture Distribution: Materials should be given on the floor to enable rooting behavior Quantity: Two pieces of wood, ropes etc. in a pen with 18 pigs Providing optimal enrichment materials such as straw or roughage on the floor that are accessible for all pigs at the same time   Ideally combined with assessment of animal based indicators

What does COM expect MS to do? Provide an Action Plan in 2018 indicating How compliance with Directive will be achieved Taking into account Compliance Criteria, Risk Assessment and Farm Improvement Measures Clear objectives and timelines for implementation Written short summary of concrete actions: e.g. don't want information on trials, research, information. Want details of CA actions to improve levels of implementation at farm level. Updates to procedures/checklists guidance, information to stakeholders on this, Set compliance critera, work with industry to put in place suitable risk assessment protocols, Be clear about the requirements and the necessity for documented, time limited improvement measures and their frequency Defined clear measurable objectives and timelines.

Sharing best practice CIRCABC information database CIRCABC: Reducing Tail Biting and Routine Tail Docking of Pigs https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/practice/farm/pigs/tail-docking_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits_analysis_en https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/animalwelfare http://www.farewelldock.eu/ http://www.grouphousenet.eu/ CIRCABC information database DG SANTE videos/factsheets DG SANTE Dire F audit/study visit reports DG SANTE home pages on AW EFSA reports on pig welfare FarewellDock GrouphouseNet