Animal Welfare EU Strategy 2011-2015

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framework law and co-regulation = Animal welfare law (Option B) 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)

Prescriptive regulation (Option C) 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

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