6.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/45

P9_TA(2022)0030

Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare

European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2022 on the implementation report on on-farm animal welfare (2020/2085(INI))

(2022/C 342/06)

The European Parliament,

—

having regard to Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European (TFEU), which affirms that ‘the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage’,

—

having regard to the study by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs of its Directorate-General for Internal Policies of November 2020 entitled ‘End the cage age: Looking for alternatives’, to its resolution of 10 June 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’ (1), and to the Commission communication of 30 June 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’ (C(2021)4747),

—

having regard to Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2) (the General Directive),

—

having regard to Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (3),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (4),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (5),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (6),

—

having regard to the research paper by the European Parliamentary Research Service of June 2021 entitled ‘Implementation of EU legislation on “on-farm” animal welfare: potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level’,

—

having regard to the study drawn up for the Commission in October 2020 to support the evaluation of the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2017 on minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2018 on animal welfare, antimicrobial use and the environmental impact of industrial broiler farming (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (9),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 December 2019 on animal welfare — an integral part of sustainable animal production,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 7 December 2020 on an EU-wide animal welfare label,

—

having regard to the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 31 of 14 November 2018 on animal welfare in the EU: closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation,

—

having regard to the fitness check currently being carried out by the Commission on EU animal welfare legislation,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 5 December 2018 on reform of the common agricultural policy (10),

—

having regard to the Special Eurobarometer 505 entitled ‘Making our food fit for the future — Citizens’ expectations’,

—

having regard to the five freedoms described by the World Organisation for Animal Health, namely freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst, freedom from fear and distress, freedom from heat stress or physical discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease, and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 May 2021 entitled ‘Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030’ (COM(2021)0236),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A9-0296/2021),

A.

whereas animal welfare, an important consideration for our farmers, is an ethical and increasingly important issue for consumers and our society in general; whereas consumer interest in the quality of food purchased and animal welfare is higher than ever and EU citizens want to be able to make more informed choices as consumers; whereas food quality in relation to animal welfare and animal health has an important part to play in achieving the goals of the Farm to Fork strategy;

B.

whereas Article 13 TFEU recognises that animals are sentient beings and stipulates that the Union and its Member States shall pay full regard to their welfare requirements in formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture and fisheries policies, while respecting customs relating to religious rituals, cultural traditions and regional heritage in the Member States;

C.

whereas although European food production standards, including animal welfare criteria, are among the highest in the world, they still require improvement; whereas several countries and regions have taken further steps in this direction, such as banning certain forms of caged farming;

D.

whereas ensuring the uniform wording and application of animal welfare legislation and updating it in line with the latest scientific knowledge is a prerequisite for raising animal welfare standards and enforcing full compliance therewith;

E.

whereas some European farmers have made some progress in recent decades by looking critically at their practices and making improvements and adjustments in their work; whereas they rely on the support of advisory and research bodies and a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to improve their practices; whereas the uptake of smart farming technologies to monitor animal health and welfare has the potential to further improve disease prevention and the implementation of animal welfare standards; whereas European farmers want to continue to move forward in this area, but face technical, legislative and economic obstacles; whereas the improvement of animal welfare must take into account the health-related aspects particular to each species, and whereas the cost should not be borne by producers alone;

F.

whereas industrial livestock farming plays a prominent role in EU agriculture; whereas in just over a decade, several million farms — more than a third of all farms in Europe — have ceased to exist, the vast majority of which were small family businesses, as a result of the upscaling and intensification of the agricultural system;

G.

whereas economic volatility is forcing stockbreeders to factor in lengthy periods of amortisation and investment, for example in livestock accommodation designed to enhance animal welfare;

H.

whereas European farmers are currently taking further action regarding the evolution of breeding and animal housing with a view to strengthening convergence with the five freedoms of the World Organisation for Animal Health;

I.

whereas animal welfare goes hand in hand with the well-being of farmers and farm operators, all of which should be given appropriate resources and greater practical support at EU level;

J.

whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the direct link between animal and human health and well-being; whereas animal welfare is also linked to the environment, as best explored through the One Welfare framework;

K.

whereas European livestock farms employ around 4 million people (salaried and non-salaried), 80 % of whom reside in the newer Member States (11);

L.

whereas intra-EU fish trade plays an essential role in the EU’s fishery trade as a whole, having accounted for 86 % of total trade within and outside the EU in 2014, with a total volume of sale of 5,74 million tonnes for a value of EUR 20,6 billion — the highest registered since 2006 (12);

M.

whereas animal health and welfare are key to ensuring food safety, food security and public health and contributing to high-quality standards in the EU;

N.

whereas healthy livestock is a key component of achieving sustainable, lower-carbon farming;

O.

whereas scientific and technical developments have improved our understanding of animal sentience, behaviour and welfare;

P.

whereas significant difficulties were encountered in the collection of data on the implementation of on-farm animal welfare legislation as regards both the quality and the availability of data, due to the lack of requirements for monitoring and data collection on Member States;

Q.

whereas the current legislation is partly obsolete and lags behind the knowledge on the specific needs of animals according to their species, age, size and physical condition, as well as the scientific advances and technical progress made in farming practices;

R.

whereas co-existing with national laws is the current body of EU legislation, which provides a combination of opt-outs, exceptions and unclear requirements and fails to provide specific safeguards or to guarantee levels of protection, thereby giving rise to a number of undesirable practices, resulting in legislative fragmentation and legal uncertainty on the domestic market, all of which are considered to have distorted competition;

S.

whereas EU animal welfare legislation only establishes species-specific minimum welfare standards for pigs, laying hens, broilers and calves, while there is no species-specific legislation for any other species farmed for the production of food, namely for dairy and beef cattle beyond six months old, sheep and goats, the parent birds of broiler chickens and laying hens, pullets, turkeys, ducks and geese, quail, fish and rabbits; whereas EU animal welfare legislation currently lacks species- and age-specific provisions that cover all production cycle stages; whereas numerous terrestrial farmed animals and farmed fish belonging to different species are currently only protected by the general provisions of the General Directive;

T.

whereas initiatives other than EU legislation and official checks have played a part in the improvement of farming practices; whereas many Member States have implemented their own animal welfare standards that are more stringent than the EU’s;

U.

whereas the Member States have been given considerable discretion over how to set requirements and assess compliance therewith; whereas the Member States have taken different approaches to the allocation of resources and prioritisation of official checks;

V.

whereas the implementation of the legislation is highly inconsistent across the Member States; whereas this has led to different levels of compliance and risks disadvantaging compliant farmers;

W.

whereas the directives on pigs (for pregnant sows), calves and laying hens have led to positive structural changes to the way in which animals are reared; whereas in the egg, veal and pigmeat sectors, the directives have led to significant changes to buildings and equipment and played a part in some advances in the number and size of holdings;

X.

whereas the General Directive has generally been found to have had less of an impact than the species-specific directives and a modest effect in terms of improving animal welfare owing to the vague nature of its requirements, its broad margins for interpretation, and the absence of species-specific protections for dairy cows, broiler and hen breeders, rabbits, sheep and turkeys;

Y.

whereas due to production pressure, the main issues that the legislation was designed to address remain widespread, including mutilations and cramped and stressful conditions; whereas the sow housing targets were not attained and implementation of the legislation has been inconsistent overall, with sow housing still too cramped and stressful and lacking sufficient enrichment material;

Z.

whereas Directive 1999/74/EC on laying hens has been a success in providing good definitions for the different production systems; whereas this success is limited, however, given the broad range of approaches applied by the Member States to its implementation and the directive’s lack of clear, mandatory and comprehensive provisions, which have enabled distorted competition to persist in the single market, and given that this directive has shown insufficient progress, did not meet the real needs of laying hens and gradually brought pressure for change, which is why alternatives to a cage housing system (13) began to be used more in individual Member States;

AA.

whereas it is in the interests of both farmers and consumers to ensure equal conditions in the internal market and equal conditions for imports of products from third countries;

AB.

whereas working conditions have improved for laying-hen and veal farmers, but not necessarily for pig farmers;

AC.

whereas the Commission has decided that it will complete the impact assessment of the ban on cage farming prepared by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2022 and the revision of animal welfare legislation, including the General Directive, by 2023;

AD.

whereas a distinction should be drawn between anecdotal cases of non-compliance, which are the focus of too much attention, and the vast majority of farmers who follow the rules;

AE.

whereas livestock farming methods and production systems vary between the Member States;

AF.

whereas Europe’s agricultural demography is experiencing an alarming decline; whereas insufficient generational renewal would have an undesirable effect on the implementation of animal welfare norms;

AG.

whereas the EU’s agricultural, environmental and international trade strategies and measures to ensure a level playing field within the single market should be coherent, complementary and appropriate;

AH.

whereas the common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the regulatory and financial tools that can be used as a stimulus to improve the health and welfare of farm animals, notably through eco-schemes but also through supporting investments, although other financing in addition to the CAP is also required to make progress in this direction; whereas according to the Commission’s evaluation of the latest EU Animal Welfare Strategy, however, Member States have neglected to take full advantage of the funds for animal welfare purposes and millions of euros in EU rural development funding for improving animal welfare are currently unused or poorly used; whereas livestock farming is the main beneficiary of second pillar aid to farms in areas with natural constraints, which make up 50 % of Europe’s utilised agricultural area, as well as of agro-environmental measures, which compensate for the additional costs linked to unfavourable location or the obligation to respect specific legislation (14);

AI.

whereas particular attention should be paid to ensuring better animal welfare through the entire production cycle and to the promotion of higher animal welfare standards on both the domestic and international markets, and ensuring that our political decisions do not weaken the European livestock production sector or serve to reduce production, which would lead to the relocation of production to other parts of the world where livestock conditions and standards are lower than in Europe, as well as other related problems that are detrimental not only to animal welfare standards but also European environmental objectives;

AJ.

whereas labelling can only be effective if it is science based, easy for consumers to understand and to make an informed choice, designed for an integrated single market applied to all animal products, and underpinned by a coherent EU trade policy to prevent products made to lower standards from entering the market, and only if it does not have additional economic implications for food sector operators, especially farmers, and is truly feasible for our producers without overly onerous implementation costs or constraints; whereas such labelling must also help to create market openings for producers; whereas research and public consultation findings show that certain stakeholders, especially business, are not fully behind the proposal for mandatory labelling; whereas voluntary labelling will earn rewards on the market in the absence of differentiation by the latter based on production characteristics; whereas there is little understanding of the impact of the labelling systems studied on food businesses as well as on consumers’ confidence and understanding of animal welfare practices;

AK.

whereas the use of DNA traceability technologies to track and trace every sick animal or infected food has the potential to reassure consumers by ensuring food safety and prevent food fraud;

AL.

whereas information tools for consumers should be designed in such a way as to maintain a level playing field and a harmonised approach, which is currently made impossible by the welter of private initiatives using unprotected animal welfare terms and claims for varying standards; whereas there is a growing market in the EU for animal products from cage-free, free range and organic systems, and for plant-based alternatives;

AM.

whereas the aim in legislative action should be to harmonise and improve the implementation of regulations and standards;

AN.

whereas the majority of animal welfare labelling schemes are initiated by the private sector, while the rest are the result of public-private partnerships or — to a lesser extent — initiatives by national competent actors in some Member States;

AO.

whereas animal welfare systems in the EU are voluntary; whereas most of them include aspects other than animal welfare, such as traceability, sustainability and health; whereas they vary greatly in terms of operation and design;

AP.

whereas there is no consensus on the prospect of mandatory animal welfare labelling rules, mainly due to the economic implications arising from their implementation, in particular for livestock farmers; whereas even if mandatory rules were to even out certain irregularities on the European market, they would have a dampening effect on private initiatives aimed at creating product differentiation and the use of animal welfare as a commercial lever;

Conclusions and recommendations

Implementing the rules

1.

 Welcomes the Commission’s evaluation and revision of the animal welfare legislation by 2023, including on animal transport and the slaughter of animals, which aims to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope, make it easier to enforce and ensure a higher level of animal welfare, as stated in the Farm to Fork strategy;

2.

 Acknowledges the strides made by many livestock farmers on their farms, particularly in improving animal welfare, and the drive and commitment of some of them to forward thinking and progress;

3.

 Recommends giving all livestock farmers the means, via an EU-level framework, to take part in a process of progress, based on objective indicators referring to the five fundamental freedoms defined by the World Organisation for Animal Health;

4.

 Calls for any future legislative initiative (whether the establishment of new legislation or a review of existing texts) entailing an amendment or change to the livestock-raising system (including accommodation) and livestock welfare criteria to be based on sound, recent scientific data or studies derived from research grounded in a systemic approach, taking all aspects into account in order to achieve sustainability and animal welfare; advocates for balance to be maintained, for scientific advice on how the changes to be introduced will affect the animals, the environment and farmers, especially small farmers, and for the competent bodies of the Member States to be consulted as early as possible in the legislative process;

5.

 Emphasises the need to carry out impact assessments before any decisions are taken and the need to develop a species-by-species approach in order to lay down specific requirements for each type of livestock farm;

6.

 Calls for the better management of veterinary prevention and promotion of high animal health and welfare standards, notably on vaccination and preventing the unnecessary use of antimicrobials, in order to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases;

7.

 Is aware of the fact that EFSA has produced several opinions on the use of animal-based measures for species not covered by specific legislation (dairy cows and beef cattle) in response to requests from the Commission; regrets the fact that these animal-based measures proposed by EFSA have not been implemented so far; calls on the Commission, therefore, to ensure that these animal-based measures are updated with the latest scientific knowledge and integrated into the existing specific legislation;

8.

 Acknowledges that according to scientific bodies, animal-based measures — although desirable — are not always enforceable and objectively verifiable; calls on the Commission, therefore, in the context of its revision of the EU animal welfare legislation, to formulate highly specific and verifiable requirements in the light of the latest scientific opinions and the various production systems across the Member States;

9.

 Calls on the Commission to ensure that the existing animal welfare legislation is complied with and to update the rules, where necessary, to better match them with society’s demands, in the light of scientific progress and research findings in this field, while broadening the scope and flexibility of those rules to adapt to the latest scientific and technological developments and the objectives of the Green Deal;

10.

 Recalls that output-oriented quantifiable changes must be made after appropriate scientific evaluation and in consultation with the competent bodies and stakeholders in the Member States, with a view to meeting the challenges facing stock breeders, on the one hand, and the needs and expectations of citizens and the health and welfare of animals, on the other, taking due account of the best choices for consumers and their purchasing power; recalls that our European food system should provide access to affordable, high-quality food; considers that producers should be guaranteed a fair share of the price of food products complying with EU animal welfare legislation;

11.

 Calls for shorter supply chains in nutrition, relying on locally or regionally produced food to provide consumers with better direct access to local food and support small farmers;

12.

 Urges lawmakers to familiarise themselves with and be fully aware of the consequences of these developments; calls for changes to be assessed using a holistic approach taking in the social, environmental, animal welfare and economic components of sustainability, as well as ergonomics for farmers and health-related aspects, and taking particular account of the ‘One Health’ approach; recalls that animal welfare must be combined with a sustainable economic approach;

13.

 Underlines the need to improve animal welfare and health in animal agriculture as part of the ‘One Health’ approach; points to the fact that in order to achieve this goal, improved animal husbandry practices are essential, as better animal welfare improves animal health, thereby reducing the need for medication and curbing the spread of zoonoses; calls on the Commission also to develop the ‘One Welfare’ approach as part of the revision of the legislation on animal welfare;

14.

 Calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up their checks monitoring for antibiotics and other banned chemical residues found in imports from non-EU countries, as part of the Commission’s strategy to effectively address the unregulated use of antibiotics and pesticides used in animal, seafood and aquaculture production;

15.

 Calls for measures to be introduced to guarantee the safety and integrity of farmers in the event of certain actions being taken towards animals;

16.

 Stresses that any change must be considered in the light of the time, support and financing needed for livestock farmers to implement it, its economic and bureaucratic implications, and the inertia it may entail; stresses the need to take particular account of investment costs, given the risk that low profit margins result in lengthy loan repayments; notes that changes to improve on-farm animal welfare need an appropriate transition period; acknowledges that livestock farmers are engaged in an ongoing investment cycle owing to recent animal welfare initiatives and long pay-off periods;

17.

 Welcomes the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’; points out that any changes to cage farming will need to be accompanied by precise and unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a cage and its characteristics for different species in order to provide for an effective transition to alternative housing systems, which are already commercially viable and in use, such as barn, free-range and organic systems for hens, park systems, floor pens, outdoor free-range and organic systems for rabbits, free-farrowing and group housing systems for sows, barn and aviary systems for quail, or pair and group housing systems for calves;

18.

 Urges the Commission, as part of the implementation of the new legislation, to precisely and clearly define the condition and facilities for the breeding of individual species of animals, which should be based on examples of good practices in alternative housing systems; recommends that the Commission focus its activities on enhancing food security and making the EU agricultural market more robust; calls for the revision of Council Directive 1999/74/EC on laying hens in order to rapidly phase out and prohibit battery cages and introduce cage-free systems for all laying hens, create a level playing field, and improve the welfare of animals kept in the EU;

19.

 Recalls that investments in improved animal welfare incur higher production costs, no matter the type of livestock farming concerned; notes that additional public aid or a clear return on investment from the market must be set out, otherwise the rise in production costs will impede or prevent farmers from investing in animal welfare, which would be an undesirable situation; considers, therefore, that the raising of animal welfare standards should take place gradually and in a responsible manner, based on a system of financial incentives, including funds outside the CAP budget;

20.

 Urges the Commission to decide on appropriate financial support for livestock farmers to encourage them to invest in better animal welfare; urges the Commission to address these shortcomings as a matter of urgency and to encourage and implement sustainable improvements in remunerating farmers’ efforts; calls for further special financial support for breeders linked to the transition to alternative housing systems for animals in connection with the implementation of new legislation banning cage farming, which the Commission has committed to doing by 2027 on the basis of a call by Parliament in its resolution of 10 June 2021 on the ‘End the Cage Age’ European Citizens’ Initiative; acknowledges that this depends on measures to ensure the necessary additional resources coupled with fair market prices; notes that while always welcome, continually raising animal welfare standards and other areas of regulation places additional burdens on compliant farmers; stresses that primary consideration should always be given to ensuring compliance and consistency with existing standards as a first step in order to ensure that the least compliant farmers are brought up to speed and comply with the existing standards before any additional burdens are placed on progressive farmers; underlines that farmers’ incomes and the competitiveness of European livestock producers in the global agricultural market need to be taken into account on the basis of reciprocity in the context of measures to enhance EU welfare legislation;

21.

 Is aware of the limited overall consistency between EU animal welfare legislation and the 2014-2020 CAP, and of the poor integration of the specific legislation into the national rural development plans and insufficient allocation of funding for the objective of animal welfare, with substantial differences from one Member State to another; encourages the Member States to draw up animal welfare eco-schemes in their national strategic plans and calls on the Commission to ensure that the national strategic plans provide support and direction for farmers in improving animal welfare standards; urgently calls for financial support to be provided to livestock farmers who will effect a transition on their farms, including through better housing conditions which meet the physical and behavioural needs of animals, whether by means of public policies (a coherent combination of different tools, including the CAP and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund) or the market, and for consumers to be provided with clear and transparent information by ensuring clear and reliable labelling of animal products on welfare-related aspects of the entire production cycle, including the method of production; calls, furthermore, for the implementation of a transparent, positive and non-stigmatising communication strategy across all animal products, taking into account the specificities of certain traditional regional products, in order to raise awareness of the expertise, importance and quality of farmers and animal breeders’ work and the benefits of the new animal welfare legislation;

22.

 Invites the Commission to communicate and help give visibility more effectively to good practices and to assist the livestock sector in its efforts to make progress with positive actions, by supporting the means of implementation, thus respecting the efforts of all stakeholders to get their initiatives off the ground and adopting an encouraging stance that incentivises the incorporation of new practices;

23.

 Urges the Member States to exclude the possibility of farmers receiving CAP voluntary coupled support for cattle whose final sale is for activities related to bullfighting, by proportionally excluding the number of heads of cattle from payments;

24.

 Invites the Commission to invest in the welfare of farmers who handle livestock and the attractiveness of their occupation with a view to enhancing motivation and productivity among settled and future farmers, thereby directly boosting animal welfare;

25.

 Proposes enhancing affordable training for farmers and operators who handle animals in the sector by adding a specific module for initial and ongoing training with a view to honing skills; calls on the Commission to carry out regular reviews of Member States and farmers’ efforts to improve the quality of education and training and to reward special commitments accordingly; supports continued efforts to collate examples of best practice in the field of education and training and the sharing of these with the Member States by means of annual reports; notes that many of the animal welfare hazards identified originated from the action and behaviour of animal handlers and owners; encourages the Commission to check that training for farmers and handlers is included in the national strategic plans;

26.

 Points out that practices intended to improve animal well-being can incur higher production costs and increase farmers’ workload, and that this must be offset by corresponding remuneration; stresses, by way of example, that phasing in loose housing in farrowing units would require a lengthy transition period to ensure that the additional costs incurred are recovered from the markets, and would require the construction of new buildings; demands the cooperation of relevant authorities in issuing building permits and the reduction of administrative burdens;

27.

 Stresses that some measures believed to improve animal welfare may in fact be counterproductive and undermine other aspects of sustainability, namely welfare and health and safety-related issues and the fight against antimicrobial resistance, as well as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if they are not developed holistically; cites the fact, by way of example, that keeping rabbits in the open air can increase stress and mortality levels, and that installing collective cages in rabbitries may lead to aggressive behaviour among does, causing stress, injury and reduced performance (15); points out that outdoor rearing may also lead to reduced control over droppings and emissions and to greater amounts of feed needed, thereby potentially causing a greater carbon impact; notes that there is a linear relation between increasing pen dimensions and ammonia emissions (16), leaving farmers facing contradictory legislation on animal welfare and environmental issues; notes that totally ‘free farrowing’ housing systems or the sudden phasing out of cage rearing could create additional sources of infection among farm animals and increase the stress caused by territorial dominance and rivalry; points out that accommodation in adequate pens at certain times in their life cycles can help curb the spread of animal diseases and pathogenic infections and prevent debilitation and avoidable mortality among young calves or piglets (17); recalls, in this regard, that a species-by-species approach is therefore needed; calls on the Commission to thoroughly assess any potentially harmful effects of each proposal on animal health and welfare;

28.

 Emphasises the multifaceted complexity of the serious welfare problem of tail biting in pig farming; observes that technical difficulties have been encountered throughout the EU during extensive research and analysis on the risk factors that trigger this behaviour; notes that this has meant that no reliable solutions whatsoever have been found so far and has consequently lead to the widespread practice of tail-docking in spite of the Commission and Parliament’s considerable efforts to disseminate information and best practices on keeping pigs with tails intact; regrets the fact that only two Member States have prohibited the practice of tail-docking so far; stresses that providing appropriate environmental enrichment, particularly materials that can be manipulated, as well as ensuring good space, implementing good feeding-related practices and providing a solid floor, can significantly reduce the problem of tail biting; suggests that more scientific research be funded and carried out with the aim of mapping an economically sustainable pathway to guarantee that pigs can be reared commercially indoors with tails intact; believes that solutions are needed within the scope of the current legislation to safeguard the welfare of pigs and to reduce the use of antimicrobials to treat injured pigs; urges the Commission to ensure that all Member States comply with the ban on the routine tail-docking of pigs; considers, furthermore, that clarity is needed regarding penalties in cases of tail-docking where pigs have been raised in one Member State and are exported to another for fattening (18);

29.

 Recalls that the full implementation of the current legislation in every Member State is crucial to enhance on-farm animal welfare and ensure a fair and level playing field in the internal market;

30.

 Recognises the efforts made by the European pig farming sector to seek alternatives to piglet castration and stresses the need for amendments to the veterinary rules regarding pig farms to take account of progress in the field of alternatives to piglet castration;

31.

 Invites the Commission to ensure the availability in the various Member States of a harmonised EU list of the available products and protocols for the use of pain-killers and anaesthesia for piglet castration; asks the Commission to permit the short-term storage of veterinary medicines on farms and to allow veterinarians to leave them there in accordance with strict regulatory framework provisions;

32.

 Notes that the production of foie gras is based on farming procedures that respect animal welfare criteria, since it is an extensive form of production that predominantly takes place on family farms, where birds spend 90 % of their lives in the open air and where the fattening phase, which lasts between 10 and 12 days on average with two meals per day, respects the animal’s biological parameters;

33.

 Applauds the Commission for publishing strategic guidelines on 12 May 2021 for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture; emphasises the importance of promoting the development of the EU aquaculture sector towards more sustainable methods which pay particular attention to fish welfare in order to address the current overdependence on imports; welcomes the fact that Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries is drafting an own-initiative report on these guidelines; calls on the Commission to put forward specific, scientifically sound provisions for the welfare of farmed fish;

34.

 Invites the Commission to improve the internal market by including changes resulting from updated EU animal welfare legislation, devising a harmonised, comprehensive and shared strategy on animal welfare in European countries with harmonised implementation of the relevant legislation and ensuring that the ambition and standards to improve animal welfare are not lowered, while monitoring the proper implementation of and compliance with existing legislation throughout the Member States;

35.

 Urges the Commission to inform consumers and raise awareness of the reality of livestock farming and its real impact on the environment, biodiversity and the climate, and the diversity and origin of production methods by showing, without dogmatism or stigmatisation, the care and attention that farmers devote to their animals; calls on the Commission and the Member States to significantly improve public awareness and understanding of the reality of livestock farming and animal welfare, including through education in schools;

36.

 Calls on the Commission to redraft its regulatory framework to improve the welfare of animals in the EU by making it clearer, more comprehensive, more predictable and more accessible with a view to making the objectives and indicators more easily comprehensible and thus leaving less room for interpretation and enabling and facilitating uniform national transposition by the Member States, before tightening the rules further or adding to them; suggests that the General Directive be updated in accordance with the latest scientific knowledge to include the Commission’s objectives and citizens’ expectations regarding the welfare of farm animals and systemic research findings, together with work on the species-specific directives, taking due account of the nature of livestock farming, the various stages of the animals’ lives, on-farm practices that do not relate to livestock farming, traditions and regional conditions, and the diversity of soil and weather conditions;

37.

 Notes that the current EU legislation on animal welfare is not comprehensive and invites the Commission to assess the need for and impact of specific animal welfare legislation in the light of the latest scientific knowledge for food-producing species that are not covered by species-specific legislation at present; takes note of the lack of animal-based welfare indicators for the General Directive and Council Directives 2008/120/EC on pigs, 2007/43/EC on chickens, and 1999/74/EC on laying hens; acknowledges, moreover, the lack of quantifiable requirements for the implementation and monitoring of environmental conditions such as air quality (nitrogen, CO2, dust), lighting (duration, brightness) and minimal noise, which not only affects animal welfare but also distorts competition because of the margin for interpretation; calls on the Commission to set up enforceable and quantifiable such indicators, which should be species-specific and up to date from a scientific point of view;

38.

 Urges the Commission to clarify its framework for monitoring Member States and to ensure that detrimental practices are tackled and to begin infringement proceedings for non-compliance; emphasises the importance of precision livestock farming technologies, including the potential of on-farm animal health and welfare monitoring tools, which help to prevent and better control disease outbreaks on farms; underlines that there are many factors behind the rate of non-compliance with animal welfare legislation, including unenforceable and unquantifiable animal-based indicators; notes that the frequency of inspections across the Member States ranges from a minimum of 1 % to a maximum of 30 %; is concerned that this large variation in the frequency of inspections either means non-compliance with the Control Regulation (19) or entails considerable pressure for farmers; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to harmonise the implementation of the Control Regulation to align the frequency of inspections between Member States and livestock sectors; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament every year on its actions and the actions of the Member States to improve the welfare of animals kept on farms in the EU;

39.

 Asks the Commission to accompany any decision with a scientific and impact assessment (including the environmental, economic and social impacts), which should take into account the diversity of farming methods in each sector in the EU and analyse the situation from the perspective of both the animal (species by species and at different stages of production) and the farmer, with a view to considering citizens’ expectations and creating a system of effective breeding to ensure that animals live in favourable conditions, animal welfare is respected and farmers are economically profitable;

40.

 Stresses that Member States should provide for appropriate enforcement regimes, which could be harmonised between Member States, and that Member States must at all times ensure the strict enforcement of EU legislation; calls on the Commission to submit regular reports to Parliament on the implementation and enforcement of EU animal welfare legislation, which should identify gaps and include a breakdown of infringements by Member State, species and type of infringement;

41.

 Calls on the Commission to improve cooperation between all the stakeholders concerned and to facilitate dialogue between the various stakeholders in the Member States so as to enable joint consideration of developments in livestock farming systems; encourages the sharing of ‘good’ practices between livestock farming sectors and countries; wishes to see the development of tools to encourage pioneering livestock farmers to participate in development projects; asks for livestock farmers and animal welfare scientists to be involved at all stages of the studies carried out in Europe’s various regions; wishes to see the study documents and documents for disseminating good practice translated into all the languages of the European Union; recognises the potential of the Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation and expects an appropriate balance across the Member States in terms of projects; encourages the Commission to promote an output-oriented approach, as a proper environment to gather Member States’ representatives, scientific bodies, stakeholders, farmers and NGOs and exchange views and best practices with a view to ensuring a more uniform implementation of the future animal welfare legislation across the Member States in line with the objectives of the Green Deal;

42.

 Welcomes the setting up of EU reference centres dedicated to the welfare of different species and categories of animals (EURCAWs) as part of the EU Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015; encourages the Commission to further develop the network of EURCAWs, especially for species not covered by the specific legislation, as an effective platform for the consistent and uniform dissemination of technical information across the Member States on how the EU legislation should be implemented;

43.

 Points out that targeted individual management practices often have a substantial influence on animal welfare; calls on the Commission to introduce a results-based approach to future projects based on scientific evidence and expert knowledge, and on peer-to-peer sharing of best practices among farmers;

44.

 Stresses the importance of regular exchanges with representatives of national and regional authorities, agricultural farmers’ and stakeholder organisations, NGOs, citizens and experts concerning examples of good practice and needed improvements in the area of animal welfare; points out that, despite its low cost, knowledge transfer in this area is highly efficient and should therefore be put into practice more often; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s renewal of the mandate of the Platform on Animal Welfare; takes the view that exchanges of good practices and knowledge transfer should be further strengthened and facilitated in order to help the parties involved to speed up and simplify their regular exchange process, as well as store and secure their flows of information; stresses the importance of holding such regular exchanges also with representatives of the non-EU countries which import animals from the Union;

45.

 Urges the Commission to link its various strategies by implementing rules drawn up in a manner consistent with the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and agricultural policies relating to trade, commercial practices and promotion; stresses that consistency between these strategies is a precondition for a viable agricultural sector; calls for the revised animal welfare legislation to be fully aligned with the priorities of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, broadening its scope and flexibility to adapt to the latest scientific and technological developments; calls on the Commission to bring trade policy into line with EU animal protection and welfare standards, by re-evaluating trade agreements with third countries and bringing reciprocity to new bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, in order to create a level playing field and avoid undermining the economic profitability of its own producers and ensure that they meet EU animal welfare and product quality standards;

46.

 Calls on the Commission to join up the various legal texts on animal welfare, whether on farms, during transport or at slaughter;

Animal welfare labelling

47.

 Deplores the limited return on investment for farmers who take part in voluntary animal welfare recognition schemes; notes, furthermore, that animal welfare labelling will only prove successful if a return on investment is forthcoming from the higher price point and if costs and benefits are fairly distributed throughout the entire agri-food chain, allowing farmers a fair share of the higher price paid by the consumer for the purchase of food products complying with EU animal welfare labelling requirements;

48.

 Calls on the Commission to negotiate reciprocity clauses at a multilateral level and in bilateral agreements regarding compliance with animal welfare standards for imported products, including for the purpose of providing accurate information to consumers;

49.

 Stresses that the introduction of any animal welfare labelling requires, at an early stage, harmonised mandatory rules that are drawn up in collaboration with all stakeholders and based on clear scientific indicators together with large-scale promotion campaigns and education activities to provide information to European consumers;

50.

 Calls on the Commission to also guarantee animal welfare in the rest of the chain downstream of the producer and to incorporate it in the harmonised voluntary labelling provisions;

51.

 Calls on the Commission to begin work on a comprehensive EU animal labelling system with a view to developing a mandatory EU framework for voluntary labelling, which should cover all livestock farms but include and recognise specific features for each species, so as to limit the risks of competition being distorted in the internal market, while leaving sufficient room for private initiatives that invest in product diversity and observe higher animal welfare standards as market leverage;

52.

 Asks the Commission to propose a harmonised and mandatory EU framework with common requirements for voluntary animal welfare labelling which is based on EU rules and which invites the Member States to record the various approaches being used; calls for the specifications of the framework to be drawn up according to a technically realistic and scientifically sound approach that reflects the methods of production throughout the entire cycle and for this framework to ensure that value is redistributed towards livestock farmers in order to enable market-driven progress in animal welfare; insists that the labelling scheme must be based on a clear set of technical references, with a well-defined use of the terms and claims which can be made in marketing, to prevent misleading consumers and animal welfare-washing;

53.

 Recalls that for the purposes of consistency, processed products and ingredients of animal origin may also be able to benefit from such labelling; recommends that the proposed animal welfare labelling scheme take into account consumers’ growing demand for information and the concurrent objectives of Farm to Fork as regards sustainability, health and dietary concerns, alongside animal welfare;

54.

 Invites the Commission to conduct an in-depth examination of the possible implications, particularly for livestock farmers, of introducing a mandatory EU framework with common requirements for labels, thoroughly assessing the impact on all the actors involved in the food supply chain, from farmers to consumers, while drawing in particular on experience gained in recent public labelling schemes in some Member States; calls on the Commission to avoid conflicts between possible future schemes and existing labelling systems, especially in relation to the mandatory requirements in the specific animal welfare directives; is concerned about the results of a previous impact assessment conducted by the Commission in 2012, which indicated that labelling would increase industry costs without necessarily increasing benefits;

55.

 Calls on the Commission to implement a policy to protect European livestock farming by prohibiting the import into Europe of livestock or meat that does not comply with European animal welfare standards;

o

o o

56.

 Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0295.

(2)  OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(3)  OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

(4)  OJ L 182, 12.7.2007, p. 19.

(5)  OJ L 10, 15.1.2009, p. 7.

(6)  OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5.

(7)  OJ C 263, 25.7.2018, p. 90.

(8)  OJ C 345, 16.10.2020, p. 28.

(9)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0277.

(10)  OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 173.

(11)  Study undertaken for the Commission entitled ‘Future of EU livestock: How to contribute to a sustainable agricultural sector?’, June 2020.

(12)  European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products, The EU fish market: 2015 edition.

(13)  European Parliament study entitled ‘End the cage age: Looking for alternatives’, November 2020.

(14)  Study undertaken for the Commission entitled ‘Future of EU livestock: How to contribute to a sustainable agricultural sector?’, June 2020.

(15)  Fortun-Lamothe, L., Savietto, D., Gidenne, T., Combes, S., Le Cren, D., Davoust C., Warin, L., Démarche participative pour la conception d’un système d’élevage cunicole socialement accepté, ‘Colloque Bien-être animal: des valeurs à partager’ [Participatory initiative with a view to designing a socially accepted rabbit farming system, ‘Animal welfare: shared values’ symposium], Strasbourg, 1 and 2 July 2019.

(16)  Guingand, N, ‘Réduire la densité animale en engraissement: quelles conséquences sur l’émission d’odeurs et d’ammoniac?’, Journées Recherche Porcine [‘Reducing stocking density in the fattening phase: effects on odour and ammonia emissions’, French Swine Research Days], 39, pp. 43-48, 2007.

(17)  Kollenda, E., Baldock, D., Hiller, N., Lorant, A., Assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts of increased animal welfare standards: transitioning towards cage-free farming in the EU, Policy report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels & London, October 2020.

(18)  See the Council conclusions of 5 October 2021 on the crisis in the pigmeat sector and the Commission draft report of an audit carried out in Denmark from 9 to 13 October 2017 in order to evaluate Member State activities to prevent tail biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs.

(19)  Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products (OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1).