Nine member states failed to meet the deadline on the EU’s animal welfare directive on the housing of pregnant sows, resulting in a distorted and unfair pig industry throughout Europe. The member-states have until next month to comply before further legal procedures are launched.
By Marie-Josée Kelly and Kristine Walkden
The failure to conform to the EU´s sow housing legislation by January 1st, 2012, has raised speculation over the effectiveness of the implementation of animal-welfare laws.
The directive was introduced in 2001; member states have had 12 years to implement the legislation, yet of the major pig producing countries, Germany, France and Ireland were reported to be least compliant. Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Poland and Portugal were also targeted by the European Commission earlier this year.
The directive bans the use of individual stalls for housing of pregnant sows during part of their pregnancy while also improving the quality of flooring, increasing living space, allowing sows to have permanent access to materials for rooting, all while providing better training on animal welfare issues for farm personnel.
Martyn Griffiths of Eurogroup for animals, an animal welfare organization responsible for representing animal welfare interests on EU advisory committees, says that following the implementation of past legislation there is uncertainty concerning the figures presented to the EU in light of the banning of sow stalls.
Upon analysis of official reports and action plans produced by Denmark, following the enforcement of EU regulation on the protection of farm animals during transport, Eurogroup concluded that Denmark had “fallen short of a number of requirements contained in the EC Transport Regulation… it failed to comply with the basic EC request for analyses and action plans in addition to reports, it is not able to demonstrate that it has carried out an adequate proportion of inspections.”
Reliving the past
A similar animal welfare directive, introduced in 1999, banning the use of battery cages for laying hens and advancing the necessity for cage enrichment came into effect at the start of 2012. Likewise, many farms were late in adhering to the law at the time.
The European Commission is following the same course of action in the non-implementation of the sow stall ban as it did with the prohibition of battery cages.
Countries not complying with the requirement have two months to reply and come up with an adequate response to the formal notice letter. If the response is not satisfactory, the European Commission will issue a Reasoned Opinion, which gives the countries two additional months to meet the directive. If after that period, member states are still non-compliant they will be taken before the European Court of Justice.
The implementation of the laying hens directive was closely monitored after it was found that a significant number of countries had not complied by the deadline which Griffiths believes has influenced the Commission in moving forward with infringement procedures rapidly but that it should have put more pressure on ensuring the deadline was met.
“The Commission argues that until a law comes into effect they can’t do anything. We think that this is a weakness of the Commission.”
Obstacles in the way to compliance
Pig farmers across the EU are putting forth the current economic crisis as an excuse for their inability to comply with the directive on time. Even in Denmark, which has been spared some of the more harsh austerity measures inflicted on its EU counterparts, farmers have encountered difficulties in making the investments when banks have been reluctant to lend them the necessary funds to expand.
There is some fear that because some pig producers will not be able to afford the investment in new stalls, pork production will be reduced and prices will be increased for European consumers. Member states that are fully compliant with the sow stall ban, such as the United Kingdom, who banned their usage in 1999, are left at a disadvantage competitively because of the investments they have made in order to comply with the recently adopted requirement.
Henrik Mortensen, Chairman of the Danish Pig Producing Society, acknowledges that Danish pig farmers have encountered troubles with the banks but also extends some of the blame to local governments for making the transition complex. Danish law sets out that in order to make any changes to their farms and barns, farmers must apply for legal permission.
“Even people who have applied 3 years ago haven’t been able to get the permission from the Danish government,” said Mortensen. “They have made it really tough to build and follow this directive according to their laws.” Some farmers are still awaiting permission to expand.
Although it is up to governments to ensure that the directive be implemented adequately, retailers and consumers also play an important role in safeguarding animal welfare.
There is a growing trend across the EU that indicates that more consumers are calling for more transparent pork labelling, according to Griffiths, while a growing number of retailers are pledging not to import illegal pork meat and by-products.
Mortensen wants the trend to carry on in Denmark.
“We [Danish pig producers society] hope that [Danish] retailers decide to start a campaign only buy legal meat from farmers who have followed this rule. Then we, Denmark and the slaughterhouses will make more money.”
For more on the situation in Denmark click here.