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. 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) 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