Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:26:43.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation of the European legislation to protect farm animals: a case study on French inspections to find solutions to improve compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

AC Lomellini-Dereclenne ,
M Miele ,
L Mounier  and
I Veissier
AC Lomellini-Dereclenne
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F63122 Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France
M Miele
Affiliation:
Cardiff School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3WA, UK
L Mounier
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F63122 Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France
I Veissier*
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F63122 Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the European Union, at least 1% of farms are inspected every year and sanctions are applied to those that do not comply with the legislation on animal welfare. These on-farm inspections can result in measures to correct welfare problems detected. They can also highlight major risks that will require a focus of efforts and help prevent further non-compliances. Here, we analysed the reports from inspections of French cattle farms between 2010 and 2013 to check whether inspection stimulates improvement and to propose ways to improve how animal welfare legislation is implemented through the cross-compliance system. French inspectors use 32 items to assess overall compliance of farms inspected. We found that compliance improves on farms that are re-inspected but not in other farms (8% of severely non-compliant farms). Nine items do not influence the overall assessment whereas eight have a huge impact. The importance attributed to items varies from the first to the second visit to a farm. The major risks are absence of farm records, lack of basic care (practices or enclosures likely to harm animals, insufficient feeding) and inadequate skills (no veterinarian consulted, insufficient qualified staff). To improve compliance with EU animal welfare legislation and the efficiency of the inspection system, we suggest organising consultation between inspectors, ministry central services and welfare experts to: (i) refine the checklist and harmonise interpretations of item compliance; (ii) make sure all farmers are aware of the legislative requirements and the major risks of non-compliance; and (iii) define plans for a step-wise improvement of non-compliant farms.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlecomplianceEU legislationinspectionsoverall assessment
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2017 , pp. 311 - 321
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anneberg, I, Vaarst, M and Sandøe, P 2013 To inspect, to motivate, or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of ani-mal welfare. Animal Welfare 22: 185–194. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.2.185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baratay, E 2012 Point de vue animal: Une autre version de l'histoire. Seuil: FranceGoogle Scholar
Barkema, HW, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Kastelic, JP, Lam, TJGM, Luby, C, Roy, JP, LeBlanc, SJ, Keefe, GP and Kelton, DF 2015 Invited review: Changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cattle health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 7426–7445. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayvel, ACD, Diesch, DJ and Cross, N 2012 Animal welfare: A complex international public policy issue: economic, policy, socie-tal, cultural and other drivers and constraints. A 20-year international perspective. Animal Welfare 21: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, B, Hacking, N and Miele, M 2014 Report on the main problem areas and their sensitivity to be addressed by knowledge transfer for each of the specific aspects of the legislation chosen for this project. Deliverable 4 of the project Coordinated European Animal Welfare Network (EuWelNet). http://www.euwelnet.eu/euwelnet/53423/5/0/80Google Scholar
Broom, D 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69104167xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buller, H and Roe, E 2014 Modifying and commodifying farm ani-mal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies 33: 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Centre for Animal Welfare 2011 Animal Welfare in Denmark 2010. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. https://www.foede-varestyrelsen.dk/english/Animal/AnimalWelfare/DCAW/Docume nts/13947_dyrevel_uk_web.pdfGoogle Scholar
DEFRA 2005 Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2005: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DEFRA: London, UKGoogle Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2012 Scientific Opinion: Guidance on Risk Assessment for Animal Welfare. EFSA Journal 10: 29Google Scholar
Escobar, MP and Demeritt, D 2016 Paperwork and the Decoupling of Audit and Animal Welfare: The Challenges of Materiality for Better Regulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16646771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 1998 Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. CELEX-EUR Official Journal L221: 23-27Google Scholar
European Commission 2005 Special Eurobarometer 229 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007 Special Eurobarometer 270 Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal Welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2012 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. https://ec.euro-pa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_eu_strate-gy_19012012_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2016 Special Eurobarometer 442 Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/S urvey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2096Google Scholar
European Parliament 2015 B8-1281/2015, European Parliament reso-lution on a new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020, (2015/2957[RSP]). http://literatur.ti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dk039546.pdfGoogle Scholar
Finnish Centre for Animal Welfare 2013 Animal welfare in Finland, a national report on animal welfare. http://elaintenhyvinvoin-tikeskus.edublogs.org/files/2012/02/Animal-Welfare-Report-11z5o7w.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
French Ministry of Agriculture 2016 Stratégie française pour le bien-être animal 2016-2020. http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/mina-gri/files/160627_ani_bea_strategie.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kjaernes, U, Miele, M and Roex, J 2007 Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Animal Welfare. Welfare Quality Reports, Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, G, Pyczak, T, Sievert, H and Häring, G 2008 Implementation of cross-compliance in the area of animal welfare. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 115(3): 89–92Google ScholarPubMed
Lipsky, M 1980 Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Manteca, X, Butterworth, A, Main, D and Velarde, A 2013 Report presenting the rationale of the undertaken strategies for knowl-edge transfer and the results of their implementation, including the rea-sons for success or failures. http://www.euwelnet.eu/euwel-net/53423/5/0/80Google Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117Google Scholar
Nitsch, H and Osterburg, B 2007 Efficiency of cross compliance controls – public administrative costs and targeting Deliverable 18 of the CC Network Project, SSPE-CT-2005-022727. http://literatur.ti.bund.de/digbib_extern/dk039546.pdfGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2016 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Tremetsberger, L and Winckler, C 2015 Effectiveness of ani-mal health and welfare planning in dairy herds: a review. Animal Welfare 24: 55–67. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.1.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–147Google Scholar
Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2015 Improving animal care and wel-fare: Practical approaches for achieving change. In: Grandin, T (ed) Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach, Second Edition pp 291–312. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, X, Yibo, L, Min, Z, Huoqi, Y and Ruqian, Z 2014 A sur-vey of chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PloS ONE 9: e109177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109177CrossRefGoogle Scholar