Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Options for the Future Final Report Evaluation team: Matt Rayment & Puja Asthana, GHK Heleen

Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Options for the Future

Final Report

Evaluation team: Matt Rayment & Puja Asthana, GHK

Heleen van de Weerd & Jason Gittins, ADAS

Janet Talling, Fera

Methods

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

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– To be effective it needs detailed requirements, covering all aspects of

welfare– Zoo animal legislation aims at biodiversity conservation and does not

specifically refer to animal welfare

There is potential to achieve much higher standards by

strengthening the enforcement of current EU legislation

By extending the scope of EU welfare legislation, several other

groups of animals could benefit from higher welfare standards

Q1: Possible options for the future

Increasing levels of enforcement of existing legislation

Considering extending the scope of EU welfare legislation to include large groups of animals for which welfare concerns exist

Exploring non-legislative routes for achieving improved welfare conditions

Stimulating further development of the Welfare Quality® project welfare assessment protocols (for enforcement)

Enhancing the effectiveness of zoo animal legislation through better enforcement and by providing more detailed requirements for the needs of the animals under its scope

Developing an inspection body to support the enforcement of the revised Experimental Animals Directive, and examining whether the FVO should take up this role

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 progressed the

harmonisation of animal welfare standards across the EU

Much greater variations in standards exist for those animals outside the

scope of current EU legislation, such as dairy cows and pets

Factors affecting harmonisation are: a lack of clarity; variations in

enforcement; and standards that go beyond EU law


Enhancing the enforcement of existing legislation

Clarification of aspects of legislation which have been

interpreted differently between Member States

Considering introducing EU welfare legislation for dairy cows

and pets in order to achieve harmonisation of Member State

legislation and to address the range of welfare issues

Enhancing communication amongst Member States, and

between Member States and the Commission on implementing

and enforcing legislation, in order to promote shared

understanding and encourage harmonisation

Q3: To what extent has EU funding for research & scientific advice on animal welfare contributed to science based EU initiatives in the field of legislation, communication and for international initiatives?

About €15 million of EU funding was allocated to scientific research on animal welfare in each year of the evaluation period

In general, research funding reflects the main priorities of EU animal welfare legislation (farm animals and facilitating the replacement of in vivo animal testing)

Information from EU research projects is linked with EU policy, primarily via EFSA activities

There is less evidence of research informing communication actions and international activities

There are concerns that the FP7 Ethics Review process does not meet its objectives


Allocating more EU research funding to the refinement of animal

experiments and to zoo animal welfare, as these subjects have so far

received little attention

Evaluating the effectiveness of the FP7 ethics procedures

Emphasising the importance of EFSA scientific opinion in the development

of policy and legislation as well as raising welfare standards

Facilitating improved coordination of animal welfare research between

Member States. A European Reference Centre (or network of centres)

could play a role in this

Ensuring that EFSA opinions continue to cover the whole scope of the

animal welfare policy area, also including non-food-producing animals

Q4: To what extent have EU actions of communication to stakeholders and the public contributed to raise their awareness and

responsibility towards animal welfare?

EU has supported events, online resources & policy consultations

Insufficient evidence to determine the impact on stakeholders and

public awareness and responsibility towards animal welfare

Size of potential task faced by the Commission and its partners in

relation to animal welfare communications is large:– Large and varied audiences; limited EU resources relative to the scale

of task; variety of organisations involved in animal welfare communications

A communications strategy would help focus activity to maximise

impact; stronger monitoring would help assess impact

Developing an animal welfare communication strategy:– Definition of problem to be addressed; identify audiences and means by

which EU supported communication activities can influence them; objectives and key messages of communications activity; Commission and partners’ roles and responsibilities; implementation plan

– Focus on communications directly linked to EU policy

Stronger and consistent monitoring and evaluation of

communication activity

Continuing work to examine options for development of animal

welfare labelling and consumer information in the EU

Regular publications to raise profile of animal welfare at EU level


Q5: To what extent have EU international initiatives contributed to raising awareness and creating a shared understanding on animal

welfare issues and standards at world level?

EU international initiatives have been widely welcomed by third

countries and are recognised as having raised the profile and

awareness of animal welfare in a global context

Trade agreements, support to organisations, standards-setting

and science / technology transfer have all contributed

There is still much to be achieved, and there is widespread

support from stakeholders that this should continue to be a

priority area for the EU

Q6: To what extent have EU international initiatives contributed to establishing equivalent market conditions between EU businesses

and businesses from third countries exporting to the EU?

Significant differences remain between animal welfare legislation

and voluntary standards in the EU and third countries

Production costs are generally higher in the EU than elsewhere,

mainly because of high land, feed and labour costs

EU has influenced the OIE to develop international principles

and recommendations, also via bilateral agreements

This is work in progress and implementation and enforcement of

international standards remain challenges for the future

Q5,6: Possible options for the future

Continuing EU support to the inclusion of animal welfare in OIE

and FAO initiatives and in bilateral agreements

Paying attention to ways of encouraging and enforcing the

adoption of animal welfare standards at international level, such

as encouraging participation of third countries in international

training initiatives

Communicating the goals and achievements of international

activities more widely within the EU and to other stakeholders

Reviewing the EU’s international activities and evaluating

outcomes periodically, to focus on the most successful strategies

Q7: Are the present financial instruments and the financial resources at EU level adapted to the needs of the EUPAW? Would it be necessary to establish specific financial instruments and/or

dedicated resources to EU initiatives related to animal welfare?

Financial resources for the development and implementation of

EUPAW are modest but increasing – Further growth will be needed as the policy develops further – Could be benefit from more dedicated resources for animal welfare– FVO would benefit from more resources for inspection efforts

Substantial funding is provided to third parties through different

EU schemes – priority is to maximise the benefits of these

Member States devote substantial resources to research, and to

implementation and enforcement, exceeding EU expenditure


Ensuring adequate growth in funding for the EUPAW over the next

action plan period, in line with the growing needs of the policy

Ensuring that the FVO has sufficient funding to ensure adequate

levels of inspection and enforcement effort

Examining the need for more dedicated budget lines dedicated to

support key aspects of animal welfare policy

Ensuring sufficient EU resources for meeting the requirements of

the revised Experimental Animals Directive

Emphasising the importance of CAP to animal welfare, as part of

the current CAP reform debate

Q8: To what extent does the EUPAW address the needs of stakeholders and the EU citizens? Which areas need changes

concerning objectives, scope, management systems or processes?

EU citizens and stakeholders have diverse needs and expectations

– with varying emphasis on different aspects of EUPAW

General public support for EU’s approach to improving farm and

experimental animal welfare

No compelling case for changing general direction of the policy

Basic principles reaffirmed - policy should be clear, enforceable and

based on sound science and economics

Interests of different groups need to be balanced and taken into

account as the policy develops


While current arrangements appear to work well, a more formal

and structured approach to stakeholder engagement could be

considered in future (as part of a wider communications

strategy)

Establishing working groups between Member States and the

Commission for dialogue/co-ordination on legislation, research

In consultation with stakeholder groups, assessing the need to

develop new modes of engagement over time, such as:

– stakeholder platforms

– online fora

– advisory committees.

Q9: To what extent do the EUPAW intervention logic, objectives & activities support or conflict with those of other EU policies? Are they

internally complementary, mutually supportive and consistent?

Elements of the EUPAW are broadly internally consistent and

coherent with other areas of EU policy

No major areas of conflict, but some specific examples of

tensions between the EUPAW and other policies

Some trade-offs between animal welfare and other policy goals

Examples of where different elements of the EUPAW (research,

legislation, communication & international activities) are mutually

supportive and support other EU policy areas


Consider addressing specific areas where there are apparent

conflicts, such as between rules for animal transport and driver

hours

Q10: To what extent do animal welfare policies contribute to the economic sustainability of the sectors concerned (farming and

experimental animals)?

Widely accepted that animal welfare policies increase costs of

businesses in the farming and experimental sectors – Estimated additional annual costs of €2.8 billion for farm animals,

€54 million for experimental animals ≈ 2% of overall output– Higher standards have business benefits, though usually

outweighed by costs

Limited evidence of the economic impact of EU legislation on the

sectors affected – Scale of impacts depends on economic factors in industries affected – Little independent evidence that animal welfare policies have

affected economic sustainability of the sectors concerned– Trade liberalisation could increase impacts in future


Rural development programmes can support investment and aid

adaptation to higher standards in the farming sector

Designing legislation to manage adverse impacts, e.g. through

phase in periods and flexible, outcome based standards

Targeted R&D for economically sustainable standards

Promoting development and harmonisation of labelling schemes

Examining role of public procurement and corporate social

responsibility in rewarding high standards

Further independent research to enhance understanding of

economic impacts, and particularly business benefits

Q11: What costs are involved in the management of the EUPAW for the Member States' public administrations?

On-farm inspections, central policy costs , transport inspections

involve major costs in all MS – Regulation costs for experimental animals significant in some

Member States generally unable to give costs of national

administration of the EUPAW – best estimates have been made

Estimates of annual costs for 27 Member States: – Central costs €13 million; farm inspections €53 million; transport

inspections €14-15 million; slaughter inspections €24-25 million; experimental animals €0.5 million [total of €105 million]

Data indicate large differences between Member States, due to

level of inspections and other issues


Improving dialogue between the Commission and Member

States in respect of data requirements, thus allowing exchange

of information on the data supplied and resolving apparent

anomalies

This would also help to quantify the main areas of administration

costs and identify opportunities for cost reductions

Documents

Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Options for the Future Final Report Evaluation team: Matt Rayment & Puja Asthana, GHK Heleen