close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Animal Welfare EU Strategy 2011

код для вставкиСкачать
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
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
3
Размер файла
711 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа