THE 2020 COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY REFORM
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Reward farmers for the recognition of animal welfare as a “public good� The societal benefits of animal welfare related to public health, environment and rural development should be recognized by including animal welfare in the definition of public goods, which are viewed, from a policy perspective, as goods that can only be provided effectively at EU level and for which minimal, mandatory funding is attributed. Under Pillar I (EAGF): 2. Include animal welfare objectives in the eco-scheme 3. Enhance conditionality and ability for Member States to add requirements that go beyond animal welfare minimum legal standards 4. Rule out coupled support for intensive livestock production 5. Exclude animal products derived from intensive livestock production from Market Measures Under Pillar II (EAFRD): 6. Make the modernization of infrastructure for the purposes of increasing livestock density ineligible to funds 7. Couple measure for agri-environment-climate to animal agriculture with reduced livestock densities and permanent outdoor access 2
1. CONTEXT In 1962, the six founding Member States of the European Economic Community vowed to restore Europe’s capacity to feed itself through the creation of the Common Agricultural Policy (“CAP”). Very quickly, the CAP was successful in achieving food security, so much so that as early as the 1970’s farmers started over producing food. Although the CAP has undergone several reforms aiming to adapt the agricultural support systems to past and current challenges, these reforms have failed to deliver results in transitioning to a more sustainable agriculture and away from intensive production methods. Quite the opposite, the CAP has in fact incentivized the intensification of agriculture across Europe.
As a result of intensification, in as little as 10 years, the overall number of farms in the EU has decreased by almost a third while the size and the number of animals per farm has proportionally increased. The predominant business model has become that of the so-called ‘factory farming,’ where extreme confinement of animals is the norm, entailing excessive use of antibiotics and increased air and soil pollution. Europeans have increasingly expressed their concern over the ways in which meat, eggs and milk are produced given their effects on farm animal welfare.
3
2. THE URGE TO REFORM THE CAP Because ensuring food security is no longer a challenge in Europe, the CAP must adjust to tackle current major challenges linked to agricultural and food systems: climate change, soil degradation and pollution, water depletion, and rampant antimicrobial resistance.
Not only is a reform urgent, it is also timely because EU citizens want it.
The political context in which the 2020 CAP reform takes place is unprecedented. Policymakers have experienced a growing gap between their EU constituents and the Environmental scientists at the Food and EU institutions, which culminated in the Agriculture Organization of the United Nations withdrawal of the UK from the EU (‘Brexit’). (FAO) 1 and Greenpeace 2 evidenced that This reform is therefore an opportunity for industrial farm animal production accounts for EU representatives to prove they listen to the a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions – voters. up to a fourth according to Greenpeace, due to the sheer numbers of animals confined in European citizens overwhelmingly support facilities, the massive production and spread higher farm animal welfare standards and extensive farming systems. The last Eurobarometer (2015) evidenced that more “CAP must adjust to tackle current than nine in ten EU voters believe it is major challenges: climate change, important to protect the welfare of farmed soil degradation and pollution, water animals and that 82% of them believe the welfare of farmed animals should be better depletion, and rampant antimicrobial protected than it currently is. resistance.” of faeces, and the over reliance on imported animal feed, such as soya beans and corn from South America. As a result, NGOs and experts have called on reducing meat consumption by 50%. In developed countries, such as the EU member states, trends in food consumption are already reflective of a reduction in meat and animal products consumption, with the rise in popularity of alternative diets, such as plant-based, flexitarian or reducetarian diets. Industrial farm animal production is also detrimental to public health. In addition to the production of highly-processed meat and dairy products, and the emissions of greenhouse gases in rural communities, the excessive use of antibiotics on farms represent a direct threat to antimicrobial efficiency in human and animal populations. Yet, there is still time to reverse the trend of factory farm proliferation through the implementation of higher farm animal welfare standards, as an efficient alternative to the current massive use of antimicrobials.
In the last decade, millions of citizens have called on the EU institutions to improve the welfare of animals, including that of farm animals, through petitions on the transport of live animals, the mutilation of piglets, and two European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECI) on live transport and the use of cages in industrial livestock production (currently ongoing).
“European citizens overwhelmingly support higher farm animal welfare standards and extensive farming systems.” The reform is also timely due to budgetary considerations. As a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the demands of other policy areas (defense and migration), the CAP budget will be diminished, thus prompting policymakers to make a more targeted, fairer use of public money. 4
By supporting farmers in the production of goods that benefit society at large, the CAP could reverse the trend of factory farming and bring relief to rural communities and consumers who have been disproportionately burdening the externalities of intensive livestock producers.
It is time for the EU to go beyond simply administering an issue as important as food production, and regain a political vision to govern one of the major agricultural economies in the world. Such a vision must include enhanced animal welfare standards, so that the EU finally lives up to its reputation on global markets.
The multiple benefits of animal welfare High level of farm animal welfare would also benefit other priority EU policy areas:
5
3. CHALLENGES WITH CURRENT CAP: ANIMAL WELFARE OPTIONAL AT BEST, IN ANY CASE MINIMIZED Animal Welfare as an Option under Pillar II
CAP, and secondly the persistent lack of enforcement of animal welfare standards Since 2003, animal welfare is listed as an included in the CAP. objective of the CAP and is matched with a dedicated payment. Member states willing A Common Agriculture & Food Policy to include animal welfare in their Rural Development Plans (RDPs) can chose among On a broader, structural level, it is also six measures aimed to improve the welfare of time the CAP fully recognizes the indirect yet significant effect of subsidies on what animals. European consumers find in the aisles of Despite the inclusion of this animal welfare supermarkets, both in terms of what products component, the CAP still fails to improve they find (quality and variety) and how much the welfare of farm animals: First, animal products there is (quantity). welfare is not a compulsory measure of the RDPs under Pillar II. Second, Pillar II payments A well-designed CAP should therefore include only accounts for 20% of the income farmers a food policy component, by which it would receive from the CAP, and because animal encourage the production of fruits and welfare measures do not benefit from vegetables in volumes allowing consumers minimum funding, animal welfare-related to afford healthy and diversified products; payments account for only a miniscule portion incentivise the production of ‘less-but-better’ of potential revenues. Third, animal welfare meat and dairy products, while deterring the measures under Pillar II are not tied to strict overproduction of cheap meat and dairy; and animal welfare requirements with effective invest in the research and development of novel food processes that are both beneficial reporting and inspection mechanisms. from a health, environmental and animal Another issue is that animal welfare payments welfare perspectives. are often diverged from their intended target through the modernization of intensive Another important section of a well-designed livestock production systems for instance, food policy would make use of promotional which only improves animal welfare marginally measures in a way that primarily benefits healthy plant-based products, defined as and further entrenches factory farming. such in accordance with official nutritional Making Animal Welfare a Priority guidelines. Animal welfare should be a priority in the next CAP. Like environmental protection in the mid-1990s, animal welfare as an objective should benefit from ambitious policy instruments. Since the enactment of animal welfare measures in 2003, the revision of policy instruments related to animal welfare is long overdue from two perspectives: firstly the content of policy instruments intended to address animal welfare, as not all animal welfare legislation is included in the current 6
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BETTER COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY 1. Compensate farmers for the production of public goods The bulk of what constitutes a farmer’s income should no longer rely on EU support so heavily (Pillar I funds). Rather, farmers should be able to derive most of their income from the market forces. However, farmers should perceive more targeted direct payments (under the eco-schemes) and higher rural development payments to compensate the costs of best practices (i.e. practices that go beyond minimum requirements). This would ensure that farmers earn more, or at least the same income than if they engage in conventional animal agriculture and would make their products more competitive on the retail market, thus incentivizing them to undertake best practices. One way to ensure
that animal welfare measures are rewarded is to define animal welfare as a public good in EU legislation, which would reflect the benefits of animal welfare on public health, environment, and rural development. 2. Impose specific reporting system to ensure more accountability in the use of funds for animal agriculture A 2017 study3 concluded that “ there [was] no systematic data collection on animal welfare throughout the EU.” The CAP should therefore require Member States to provide a detailed report of the amount of funding they allocate to producers engaged in animal agriculture, and more specifically the level of funding allocated animal welfare measures, on a yearly basis. 7
The EU authorities must be able to rely on the data provided by Member States to publish the amount of payments afforded to animal agriculture in the EU, with a breakdown per country, method of production, and source of funding (coupled support, RDP payments). Given the misuse of animal welfare funding under the RDPs, countries should report on the use of funds under Pillar II in detail by listing the upgraded standards of production methods eligible for funding and the expected outcomes of such upgraded standards on farm animal welfare.
animal agriculture, by setting a minimum of number of days in the year the animals should spend outdoor. The number of bad weather days should also be deducted from that amount, to ensure there is no incentive to put the animals on pasture in extreme weather conditions or that shelter is provided. 4. Enhance conditionality and include an option for Member States to add requirements that go beyond animal welfare minimum legal standards under Pillar I
A potentially powerful enforcement Based on such data, measures promoting the mechanism, cross-compliance currently transition to free farrowing or pasture-based allows many exemptions contributing to the systems, the reduction of stocking densities, lax enforcement of EU Directives on farm and the decrease in piglet castration and animal welfare. However, the “enhanced” mutilations should be deemed more effective conditionality in the legislation proposal simply perpetuates the old and ineffective and thus prioritized in the use of funding. cross-compliance mechanism whereby 3. Include an animal welfare objective in the farmers need to comply with only three “eco-schemes” under Pillar I animal welfare legislations to have access to CAP direct payments. Eurogroup for Animals The eco-schemes (article 28) should also therefore asks the following: provide for measures that benefit climate, environment and farm animal welfare, beyond • Conditionality with all animal welfare minimum requirements. An example of such legislation. In particular the EU directives measures would be to grant eco-scheme on poultry welfare (broiler and eggpayments only to farmers engaged in pasturelaying hens), the regulations on slaughter based (cattle and pigs) or free-range (poultry) (where animals are slaughtered on farms), breeding, and animal health directives4 .
8
• Conditionality for all farmers. The exemption for participants to the Small Farmers Scheme should be removed. By law, all farmers must comply with EU directives regardless of conditionality under the CAP. Simplification for beneficiaries of small payments should not be achieved to the detriment of the law.
animals are kept in extreme confinement, are denied outdoor access and natural light. Additionally, Market Measures, and the EU School Schemes in particular, should only be available to products that abide by official nutritional recommendations, thereby excluding highly processed meat and dairy products.
• A more robust penalty system to deter unlawful practices: Specifically, the EU Commission should prohibit Member States from implementing early warning systems when breaches with conditionality are observed, and should instead direct Member States to undertake penalties against farmers who are in violation of the law as early as the first finding of noncompliance5 . Furthermore, the Commision should hold Member States accountable for lax enforcement of conditionality by reducing yearly payments directed at Pillar I (and prohibit inter-pillar transfer from Pillar II to Pillar I aimed at compensating such a reduction).
7. Make the modernization of infrastructures for the purposes of increasing livestock density ineligible to investment funds under Pillar II Facilities that provide no access to pasture, no natural light, and which aim to increase stock densities should be considered ineligible for investments payments under Pillar II. 8. Couple measures for agri-environmentclimate to animal agriculture with reduced livestock densities and permanent outdoor access from Pillar II
Agri-environment-climate measures beyond mandatory standards which have to be included in the RDPs should also be coupled • Allowing Member States to add with the improvement of animal welfare requirements that go beyond animal standards (beyond legal minimums) when welfare minimum EU and national afforded to animal agriculture. legal standards in conditionality. Such requirements would typically include: no 9. Couple measures against antimicrobial castration of pigs, no use of crates for sow, resistance (AMR) to animal welfare measures outdoor access for cattle and pigs. Scientific studies have demonstrated the
5. Make intensive livestock production adverse impact of high antimicrobials use in ineligible to coupled support for under Pillar I intensive livestock production systems on both human and animal health. The future The law should target coupled support CAP should promote higher animal welfare payments for animal agriculture at production as a mean to fight AMR. More specifically, at risk of disappearing without such payments, the CAP should favour production systems such as pastoral productions. Additionally, the that avoid large group size and overcrowding law should provide for an ineligibility criterion conditions, give animals the possibility to for intensive livestock production and any display their natural behaviour, promote facilities that fail to provide outdoor access outdoor access, maintain good air quality, and to animals. use slower growing breeds. Implementation 6. Exclude Market Measures for animal opportunities exist under Pillar II (investments, products derived from intensive livestock animal welfare measures, the creation of an additional hybrid program coupling measures production under Pillar I redressing AMR through higher animal welfare) The law should enact ineligibility from Market and Pillar I (eco-scheme). Measures for meat and dairy products derived from intensive livestock production, wherein 9
ENDNOTES FAO, Livestock Long Shadow, Environmental Issues and Options, 2006, available at: http:// www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf 1
Greenpeace, Less is More, Reducing Meat and Dairy for a Healthier Life and Planet, available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-international-stateless/2018/03/698c4c4a-summary_greenpeace-livestock-vision-towards-2050.pdf 2
G. Pe’er, S. Lakner et al.,(2017). Is the CAP Fit for Purpose? An Evidence-Based Fitness Check Assessment, Leipzig, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, p. 58, available at: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/ file/1/5401 3
Namely: Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing; Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production; Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens; Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’) (due to come into force in 2021); and Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on zootechnical and genealogical conditions for the breeding, trade in and entry into the Union of purebred breeding animals, hybrid breeding pigs and the germinal products thereof (‘Animal Breeding Regulation’) (due to come into force in 2018). 5 Currently, Member States are allowed to implement an early warning system by which farmers in violation of cross-compliance are notified before being penalized through a reduction in payments (Horizontal Regulation, Article 99(2)(4)). The early warning mechanism does not apply where breaches to cross compliance represent a threat to animal health or public health. 4
10
Rue Ducale, 29 - 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (0)2 7400820 Email: info@eurogroupforanimals.org www.eurogroupforanimals.org Follow us on Twitter @Act4AnimalsEU and Like us on Facebook
12