Amen­de­menten Hazekamp op het imple­men­ta­tie­rapport over het welzijn van land­bouw­huis­dieren

Amendment

7 a. having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2017 on minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits (2016/2077(INI)),

Amendment

7 b. having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2018 on animal welfare, antimicrobial use and the environmental impact of industrial broiler farming (2018/2858(RSP)),

Motion for a resolution

8. having regard to its resolution of 10 June 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’ (2021/2633 (RSP)),

Amendment

8. having regard to the study requested by European Parliament’s PETI Committee ‘End the cage age: Looking for alternatives’ of November 2020, its resolution of 10 June 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’ (2021/2633 (RSP)) and the Commission Communication - C(2021)4747 of 30 June 2021,

Amendment

8 a. having regard to the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 31/2018 on animal welfare in the EU,

Motion for a resolution

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

Amendment

11. having regard to the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the implementation report on on-farm animal welfare,

Amendment

12 a. having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on theCommon Agricultural Policy adopted on 5 December 2018 (CDR 3637/2018),

Amendment

12 b. having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on Agro-ecology adopted on 5 February 2021 (CDR 3137/2020),

Amendment

12 c. having regard to its initiative report of 8 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (2020/2273(INI)),

Amendment

12 d. having regard to the recent note of the Council ("Agriculture and Fisheries") of 28 June 2021 calling for a permanent prohibition of fur farming in the EU,

Amendment

12 e. having regard to the Commission’s strategic guidelines for sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture,

Motion for a resolution

A. whereas animal welfare is a sensitive and increasingly important issue in our society;

Amendment

A. whereas animal welfare is an ethical and increasingly important issue in our society;

Amendment

A a. whereas Article 13 of the TFEU considers animals as sentient beings, thus are capable of feeling pleasure and pain; therefore EU legislation must ensure that animals are kept in conditions that do not subject them to maltreatment, abuse, pain or suffering;

Amendment

A b. whereas animals should no longer be modified or mutilated to be adapted to the system, but the system should be adapted to the animals’ needs and behaviour instead, meaning that it should not be allowed to hurt an animal, cause injury to an animal or harm the health or welfare of the animal with the aim of housing the animal in a certain way;

Motion for a resolution

B. whereas European food-production standards, including animal welfare criteria, are the highest and most rigorous in the world;

Amendment

B. whereas European food-production standards, including animal welfare criteria, have to be improved, and notices that several countries and regions took further steps, for instance by banning certain forms of caged farming and banning live export and the transport of specific animal categories;

Amendment

B a. whereas the implementation of EU animal welfare legislation is facing numerous problems, including a lack of compliance, not harmonised standards and the absence of legal milestones;

Amendment

B b. whereas there is an overall lack of effective implementation and enforcement of current EU legislation related to the welfare of animals;

Motion for a resolution

C. whereas more uniform application of existing animal welfare legislation is a prerequisite to raising these standards;

Amendment

C. whereas updating existing animal welfare legislation is much needed, as well as the need for development, implementation and enforcement of strengthened and new, species-specific animal welfare legislation;

Amendment

C a. whereas ongoing and specific animal welfare problems, not only related to livestock production in the farming sector, but also in other sectors, such as those concerning companion animals, equines, wild animals and other animals kept or traded in the context of an economic activity, should be solved at EU level;

Motion for a resolution

D. whereas European farmers have made steady 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 to improve their practices; whereas, what is more, European farmers want to continue to move forward in this area but face technical and economic obstacles;

Amendment

D. whereas despite European farmers having made some progress in recent decades on farm animal welfare, the maltreatment and suffering of farmed animals in the EU has continued during these decades and even multiplied, because ever-increasing numbers of animals have been bred and confined in factory farms;

Amendment

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

Amendment

D b. whereas despite significant developments in animal welfare science have taken place since the existing EU farm animal welfare legislation was adopted, it is vital to revise and augment the existing body of animal welfare legislation to bring it into line with the latest scientific advancements and to respond to societal demands for improvement of the welfare of animals and the elimination of outdated livestock housing systems and other production practices that negatively impact their welfare;

Motion for a resolution

E. whereas animal welfare goes hand in hand with farmers’ welfare and both should be given appropriate resources;

Amendment

E. deleted

Amendment

E a. whereas the agricultural subsidies to promote agricultural products inside and outside the EU drastically increased the past years, namely to 142,5 million euros in 2017, 188.5 million euros in 2018 and 200 million euros in 2020;

Amendment

E b. whereas the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the direct link between animal and human health and wellbeing and the consequences of dysfunctional interaction with animals;

Motion for a resolution

F. whereas scientific and technical developments have improved our understanding of animal sentience and welfare;

Amendment

F. whereas scientific and technical developments have improved our understanding of animal sentience and welfare and should lead to suitable and better legislation to protect all animals kept in the EU;

Amendment

F a. whereas European citizens have a strong interest in the welfare of animals and want to be able to make more informed choices as consumers;

Motion for a resolution

H. whereas the current legislation is partly obsolete and lags behind the scientific advances and technical progress made in farming practices;

Amendment

H. 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, and the scientific advances and technical progress made in farming practices;

Amendment

H a. whereas animal welfare should be further improved on the basis of prevailing scientific findings;

Motion for a resolution

I. whereas the current EU legislation, which provides a combination of opt-outs, exceptions and unclear requirements and fails to provide specific safeguards, co-exists with national laws, all of which are considered to have distorted competition;

Amendment

I. whereas the current EU legislation, which provides a combination of opt-outs, exceptions and unclear requirements and fails to provide specific safeguards, co-exists with national laws;

Motion for a resolution

J. whereas animal welfare legislation does not cover all species farmed for food;

Amendment

J. whereas animal welfare legislation does not cover all species farmed for the production of food, as there is still no species-specific legislation 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;

Amendment

J a. whereas currently animal welfare legislation lacks species-and age-specific provisions that cover all production cycle stages;

Amendment

J b. whereas hundreds of millions of terrestrial farmed animals and billions of farmed fish belonging to different species are currently only protected by the general provisions of Directive 98/58/EC;

Amendment

J c. whereas it has been found that the General Directive has generally been less impactful than the species-specific Directives, due to the vague nature of the requirements and the large margins of interpretation it has allowed and the absence of species-specific protections for dairy cows, broiler and hen breeders, rabbits, sheep and turkeys;

Amendment

J d. whereas rabbits are the second most farmed species in the EU in terms of numbers of animals, with a majority of them reared in cages with inadequate welfare standards;

Amendment

J e. whereas male goat kids that are born in the dairy goat industry are and almost always separated from their mothers immediately after birth, and already transported and slaughtered three days after birth, and alarmingly high numbers of male goat kids and surplus goat lambs become seriously ill and die after being taken away from their mothers;

Amendment

J f. whereas there are several structural and serious welfare problems in duck farming, including the lack of open bathing water, which prevents ducks from displaying their species-specific behaviour, and furthermore, ducks suffer from joint inflammation and bone abnormalities because their body is not suitable for standing all day, which is still being aggravated by the fact that duck farming is aimed at developing a lot of breast meat;

Motion for a resolution

K. whereas initiatives other than EU legislation and official checks have played a part in the continuous improvement of farming practices;

Amendment

K. deleted

Motion for a resolution

M. 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;

Amendment

M. whereas the directives on pigs (for pregnant sows), calves and laying hens have not led to positive structural changes to the way in which animals are reared, as sows are still caged for nearly half of their life and routine tail docking and teeth clipping still exist, laying hens are still kept in ‘enriched’ cages, colony cages and combi cages, and it is still permitted to remove calves from their mother and keep them in isolation for four weeks although this is known to cause physical and psychological suffering; whereas in the egg, veal and pigmeat sectors, the directives have led to some advances in the number and size of holdings, which is not an advance from animal welfare, environment and human health point of view;

Motion for a resolution

N. whereas the laying hens directive has been a success; whereas this success is limited, however, given the broad range of approaches applied by the Member States to its implementation, which has distorted competition in the single market;

Amendment

N. whereas the success of the laying hens directive has been limited, given the broad range of approaches applied by the Member States to its implementation and given the lack of clear, mandatory and comprehensive provisions;

Motion for a resolution

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

Amendment

O. deleted

Motion for a resolution

P. 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;

Amendment

P. whereas attention should remain on the cases of non-compliance that reveal enormous animal suffering and systemic inhumane treatment of animals, as exposed by multiple investigations, including inspections by the Commission

Amendment

P a. whereas the surgical castration of pigs is still routinely practiced despite the Brussels Declaration where different actors of the farming and the food chain committed to end the surgical castration of pigs by 1 January 2018;

Motion for a resolution

Q. whereas livestock farming methods vary among the Member States;

Amendment

Q. whereas animal production farming methods vary among the Member States;

Amendment

Q a. whereas there are over 300 million farmed animals each year caged for part or all of their lives, and there are grave concerns throughout the EU regarding the welfare of animals reared and farmed in cages, as animals are not even able to stand straight, to stretch or to turn around and it is impossible for animals kept in cages to exhibit their natural behaviour;

Amendment

Q b. whereas in the EU nearly 120 million rabbits are commercially farmed, of which almost all of them are confined to cages for their entire lives; whereas in the EU over 350 million laying hens are commercially farmed, of which almost half of them are kept in overcrowded cages with no more space than an A4 sheet of paper; whereas in the EU around 11 million sows have to give birth and suckle their piglets ina cage; whereas in the EU at least 140 million quail are kept in cages in which they are unable to perform basic behaviour; whereas in the EU around 40 million ducks and geese are annually imprisoned in cages during their lives for the production of foie gras; whereas in the EU around 20 million dairy calves areborn every year, of which more than half of these are kept in small, individual pens away from their mother;

Motion for a resolution

R. whereas our agricultural, environmental and commercial strategies should be coherent;

Amendment

R. whereas agricultural and environmental strategies in the EU should be coherent;

Motion for a resolution

S. whereas the common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the regulatory tools that can be used to improve the welfare of farm animals;

Amendment

S. whereas the common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the regulatory tools that can be used to improve the welfare of farm animals, however, as noted in the Commission’s evaluation of the latest Animal Welfare Strategy, Member States have neglected to take full advantage of thefunds for animal welfare purposes, and millions of euros in EU rural development funds available for improving animal welfare are currently unused or poorly used;

Motion for a resolution

T. whereas particular attention should be paid to ensuring that our political decisions do not weaken the European livestock-production sector, which would lead to the relocation of production to other parts of the world where livestock conditions and standards are lower than in Europe, and to other, connected problems;

Amendment

T. whereas particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the EU will support a shift towards a plant-based and less and better animal-based products consumption, better animal welfare during the whole production cycles, and the promotion of higher animal welfare standards both internationally and on the domestic market;

Amendment

T a. whereas a reduction of the number of farm animals kept in the EU, especially in the industrisal livestock sector, should be incentivised along with a strategy to increase the production and consumption of plant-based food;

Amendment

T b. whereas the production and consumption of animal products accounts for a major share of resource use and significantly impacts animal health and welfare, public health, the climate and the environment;

Motion for a resolution

U. whereas labelling can only be effective if it is easy for consumers to understand, designed for an integrated single market and underpinned by a coherent EU trade policy;

Amendment

U. whereas labelling can only be effective if it is mandatory, 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 the entering of products on the market produced by lower standards;

Motion for a resolution

V. whereas information tools for consumers should be designed in such a way as to maintain a level playing field, which is currently hampered by the welter of private initiatives;

Amendment

V. 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 hampered by the welter of private initiatives using unprotected animal welfare terms and claims for varying standards;

Amendment

W a. whereas a diet rich in plant-based foods and with fewer animal source foods confers both improved health and environmental benefits, and transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts, whereas global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes will have to double, and consumption of foods such as red meat and sugar will have to be reduced by more than 50% in order to achieve dietary shifts towards less resource-intensive products (more plantbased, less refined);

Amendment

W b. whereas industrial livestock farming results in high greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation, air pollution, water contamination and biodiversity loss, and agriculture is responsible for about 90% of EU ammonia emissions, which has significant negative effects on the environment and biodiversity, and is a major contributor to the air pollution that kills 400,000 European citizens each year;

Amendment

W c. whereas moving away from intensive livestock farming practices towards sustainable, extensive agriculture will deliver an immense reduction in methane emissions from the agricultural sector while also providing benefits for the environment, biodiversity, animal welfare and public health; whereas drastically reducing the number of animals kept in the EU for agriculture is an essential step in this process;

Amendment

W d. whereas adapting our diets and drastically reducing the production and consumption of animals while developing alternative protein sources to substitute meat, dairy and other animal products is a cost-effective, quick, healthy and easy measure to fight methane-induced climate change and will realise countless co-benefits for human, animal and ecosystem health and welfare;

Amendment

W e. whereas a method-of-production and origin labelling can only be truly transparent if it is mandatory, labels all animal products, is species-specific and covers all the stages of the life of the animal, and includes the farming, transport, and slaughter methods;

Amendment

2 a. Expresses its concerns over the in effective implementation and enforcement of current EU legislation related to the welfare of animals;

Amendment

2 b. Notes that the EU Directives on on-farm animal welfare are found to be outdated, often inadequate, too vague, lacking specific protections and providing exceptions or derogations to requirements, resulting into a number of undesirable practices violating the welfare of animals that have continued to be allowed;

Amendment

2 c. Notes that 70 billion farm animals are kept worldwide and transported globally on an ever-increasing scale, and that the industrial livestock system, by concentrating large amounts of fragile and stressed animals in confined spaces, is one of the major risk factors of the outbreak and the spreading of zoonoses and poses therefore great danger to public health; is therefore of the opinion that the EU needs to swift away from the continued intensification of the livestock production to regional and small-scale food production;

Amendment

2 d. Stresses that, in the context of food safety, environmental protection, climate action, animal welfare and equality between Member States, the Commission must at all times ensure strict enforcement of European legislation and calls on the Commission to make more and better use of infringement procedures in this regard, including strong sanctions;

Motion for a resolution

1. Acknowledges the great strides made by livestock farmers on their farms, particularly in improving animal welfare, and their drive and commitment to forward thinking and progress;

Amendment

1. deleted

Amendment

1 a. Acknowledges that the development of some farming methods and technologies aiming at increasing production and/or reducing production costs, have, and have had, negative consequences on the welfare of animals, and regrets that the intensification in animal production, which is the result of a business model largely relying on exports, is a significant obstacle to the welfare animals farmed in the EU;

Amendment

1 b. Recognises that the Covid-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the interconnectivity of human, animal and planetary health and expresses deep concern that intensive agriculture, through its contribution to biodiversity loss and climate change, is a leading driver of pandemics, as well as posing a direct threat to human health through the spill-over of zoonotic diseases from animals kept in close proximity to each other for industrial farming practices;

Amendment

1 c. Underlines the key role that the EU should play in supporting the development of agro-ecological and plant-based agricultural practices;

Amendment

1 d. Stresses the need for urgent and bold policy and legislative change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of the unsustainability of the current food system and the higher costs of a failure to act, paying full regard to the welfare of farm animals, given that this is integral to food sustainability, and recommends that it includes measures to stimulate the adoption of higher animal welfare standards, a reduction of the amount of farm animals and stocking densities, and an increase of the production and consumption of plant-based products atthe same time;

Amendment

1 e. Stresses the need to swiftly move away from industrial animal farming by a significant reduction of the amount of animals kept in the EU, aiming at a 70% reduction in livestock numbers in the EU, with particular focus on Member States with high livestock density such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark;

Amendment

1 f. Urges the revision of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which sets down generic rules that have proved difficult to implement and enforce, suggests therefore transposing this Directive into a Regulation, thereby creating the possibility of delivering delegated and implementing acts to set down welfare requirements for species for which no species-specific EU minimum standards presently exist, including dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep, goats, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, farmed fish, quail and all of their offspring;

Amendment

1 g. Notes that broiler chickens are the most numerous terrestrial farmed animals in the EU, of which the vast majority coming from intensive farming systems, while their welfare is currently insufficiently guaranteed by the various pieces of EU legislation as they do not address the main problems that are intrinsic to this industry such as the welfare problems of ever fast-growing broiler chickens;

Amendment

1 h. Stresses that the genetic selection of rapid growth or high producer breeds and the widespread use of those breeds in EU agriculture has adverse consequences on the welfare of the animals concerned; calls for greater genetic diversity of breeds on farms, including ‘dual purpose’ animals and slower growing breeds; recognises such diversification can contribute to sustainability objectives and improve resilience against illness; calls on the EU to phase out breeding lines which result in pain and animal health problems such as fast growing poultry breeds, sows with oversized litters, high yield dairy cows, and high yield laying hen hybrids;

Amendment

1 i. Urges the revision of Council Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production in order to introduce specific animal welfare measures applicable to hatcheries and for the protection of broiler breeders, to specify a complete range of mandatory and verifiable animal-based indicators for the monitoring of welfare of individual chickens on farm (including parent stock) and at slaughter, in accordance with point (e) ofArticle 21(8) and Article 96(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625, to adopt improved environmental and husbandry standards (including the use of higher welfare broiler breeds, rapid growth issue, lower stocking densities without derogations, a ban on thinning to one instance per flock, provision of adequate enrichments, sufficient natural light, fresh air, enrichments and perch space, and stricter air quality parameters and reduce the sector’s dependency on antibiotics) and to estanlish a ban on the rearing of extremely fast-growing chickens; reiterates its call to accelerate a shift to alternative rearing systems that use higher welfare or traditional broiler breeds, which are more robust and healthy than fast-growing breeds, and to not allow any import products that do not meet EU standards;

Amendment

1 j. Calls on the Commission to commission a roadmap towards alternative and small-scale broiler chicken rearing systems that guarantee higher welfare and/or traditionalbroiler breeds, with particular attention to the reduction in prevalence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant infectious zoonotic agents, the reduction in use of antimicrobials that are important for human health, in line with the One Health Action Plan against antimicrobial resistance;

Amendment

1 k. Urges the revision of Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in order to rapidly phase-out and prohibit enriched battery cages and introduce cage-free systems for all laying hens, to create a level-playing field and at the same time improve the welfare of animals kept in the EU;

Amendment

1 l. Disapproves the unethical and systematic killing of billions of male chicks in the EU every year, whether by using a shredding machine or carbon dioxide gas, as it is aviolation of animal welfare law; emphasizes that France and Germany already announced a ban on the systematic killing of male chicks and urges the Commission and the Member States to follow this example;

Amendment

1 m. Calls on the Commission to propose specific EU legislation on minimum standards for the protection of farmed rabbits, as they are the second most farmed species in the EU in terms of numbers of animals, with a majority of them reared in cages with inadequate welfare standards;

Amendment

1 n. Stresses that, although a large proportion of sheep and goats are reared in extensive farming conditions, such as on pasture land, significant concerns exist regarding animal welfare in intensive goat and sheep farming; underlines the alarming situation of male goat-kids that are treated as a waste product, and already transported and slaughtered when only a few days old, as well as problems as mutilations, lameness, transport problems and diseases caused by communicable diseases, and calls on the Commission to address these concerns in the upcoming revision of animal welfare legislation;

Amendment

1 o. Is deeply concerned by the stable fires occurring in the EU that lead to the horrid death of animals and the release of toxic fumes; calls on the Commission and the Member States to tackle the problem of stable fires by promoting best practices and by introducing fire safety requirements, including preventive measures and mandatory sprinkler installations, measures which guarantee that animals can escape from their stables in the event of fire and a ban on air washing installations, as livestock barns do not only tend to be very prone to fire due to dust, straw and manure gases, but air washing installations, and their ventilation systems, are also flammable and rapidly spread the fire due to fanning;

Amendment

1 o. Is concerned that there hasn't been any significant improvement for the welfare of male goat kids and that both percentages and actual numbers of male goat kids that suffer from very poor health, or even die, are still unacceptably high; calls on the Member States concerned to draw up an action plan in which concrete targets are set established for the prevention of disease and death among male goat kids and in which the welfare and intrinsic value of both the goats and their surplus are preconditions;

Amendment

1 p. Points out that duck farming causes several structural and serious welfare problems to ducks and poses a high risk of bird flu outbreaks, and is therefore of the opinion that the Commission and the Member States should end duck farming in case the meat for which ducks are reared and killed is almost exclusively destined for export;

Amendment

1 q. Reiterates its call on the Commission to bring forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras;

Motion for a resolution

2. 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 (OIE);

Amendment

2. Recommends giving all animal production farmers the means, via an EU-level framework, to take part in a process of progress, based on the “Five Domain” model (nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and mental state);

Motion for a resolution

3. 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) to be based on sound, recent scientific data derived from research grounded in a systemic approach and not focused on any single aspect of sustainability; advocates for balance to be maintained and for scientific advice on how the desired changes will affect the animals, the environment and the farmers to be followed;

Amendment

3. Calls for any future legislative initiative (including the establishment of new legislation and a review of existing texts) entailing an amendment or change to the animal-raising system (including accommodation) to be based on sound, recent scientific data derived from research grounded in a systemic approach and not focused on any single aspect of sustainability; advocates for balance to be maintained and for scientific advice on how the desired changes will positively affect the animals, the environment and the farmers to be followed;

Motion for a resolution

4. Calls on the Commission to update animal welfare rules in the light of scientific progress in this field;

Amendment

4. Calls on the Commission to update animal welfare rules in the light of scientific progress in this field, by embedding the "Five Domains" model and the ‘OneWelfare’ approach, as well as the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy;

Amendment

4 a. Calls for stronger harmonisation of the legal framework for animal husbandry in the EU, using common, science-based animal welfare indicators and welcomes the Commission’s commitment to revise the existing animal welfare legislation, but urges the Commission to already deliver concrete proposals by 2022;

Amendment

4 b. Points out that the EU citizens are increasingly concerned about the welfare of animals, especially the welfare of animals kept in the livestock industry;

Motion for a resolution

5. Recalls that changes must be made after scientific evaluation and with a view to meeting citizens’ needs, with due account for consumers’ choices and purchasing power;

Amendment

5. Recalls that changes must be made in accordance with scientific evaluation of animals' needs and with a view to improving the welfare of animals and meeting citizens’ needs, expectations and concerns in relation to on-farm animal welfare, and the interrelated impact on public and animal health;

Amendment

5 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the CAP fully recognises animal sentience and holistically addresses environmental and public health challenges associated with poor animal welfare practices;

Amendment

5 b. Calls on the Commission to support the development of a new sustainable food policy that recognises the improvement of farm animal welfare, in conjunction with the uptake of the production and consumption of plant-based food;

Amendment

5 c. Underlines that reducing the production and consumption of meat and dairy products will make a significant positive contribution to the climate, environment. public health and animal health and welfare and should be incentivised as a key factor in the fight against climate change;

Amendment

5 d. Stresses the importance of promoting sustainable plant-based diets in line with the objectives of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, by raising consumer awareness of the impacts of consumption patterns on human health, animal welfare and the environmental footprint;

Motion for a resolution

6. 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 and economic components of sustainability, as well as ergonomics for farmers and health-related aspects; recalls that animal welfare must be coupled with an economic approach if it is to prove successful in the long run;

Amendment

6. Urges lawmakers to familiarise themselves with and be fully aware of the positive consequences of developments; calls for changes to be assessed using a holistic approach taking in the social, environmental and economic components of sustainability, as well as ergonomics for farmers and health-related aspects;

Motion for a resolution

7. Stresses that any change must be considered in the light of the time needed for livestock farmers to implement it and the inertia it may entail;

Amendment

7. Acknowledges that changes on-farm to positively impact animal welfare need appropriate transition periods, while emphasizing the need to ensure that animal welfare does not suffer under new measures for the agricultural sector, and stresses that no measures, targets, or incentives should lead to a restriction of livestock animals to indoor confinements, as animals must have the opportunity to graze and roam outdoors and should not be prevented from exhibiting their natural behaviour;

Motion for a resolution

8. Warns that any potential changes to cages will need to be accompanied by precise and unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a cage;

Amendment

8. Welcomes the European Citizens' Initiative “End the Cage Age” and emphasizes the precise and unambiguous definition of what constitutes a cage, starting from the basic definition of a cage as a system of confinement in which animals cannot display basic natural behaviour (such as swalking/hopping/flying/foraging/dustbathing/resting) in a comfortable manner and as they choose to, and benefit from with their own species; welcomes in this regard the Commissions' commitment to phase out and finally prohibit the use of cages for all the animal species and categories referred to in the initiative, namely laying hens, sows, calves, rabbits, pullets, broiler breeders, layer breeders, quail, ducks and geese, as part of the ongoing revision of the animal welfare legislation;

Amendment

8 a. Stresses that the market for animal products from cage-free, free range and organic systems, as well as the market for plant-based alternatives, is growing in the EU;

Motion for a resolution

9. Recalls that investments in improved animal welfare incur higher production costs, no matter the type of livestock farming concerned; notes that, unless covered by financial aid or a return on investment from the market, the rise in production costs means that farmers will not be able to invest in animal welfare;

Amendment

9. Recalls that investments in improved animal welfare may incur higher production costs, no matter the type of animal farming concerned; notes that these higher costs need to be covered by return on investments from the market or financial aid if necessary;

Motion for a resolution

10. Calls for financial support to be provided to livestock farmers who must effect a transition on their farms, whether by means of public policies (a coherent combination of different tools, including the CAP) 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 their production; calls, further, for a positive and non-stigmatising communications strategy to be implemented;

Amendment

10. Calls for financial support to be provided to animal production farmers who must effect a transition on their farms, including a reduction in the number of animals and better housing conditions which meet animal physical and behavioural needs, whether by means of public policies (a coherent combination of different tools, including the CAP and the EMFAF) or the market, and for consumers to be provided with clear and transparent information by ensuring mandatory, clear and reliable labelling of all animal products on welfare-related aspects of their entire production cycle –from birth to death; calls, further, for a positive and non-stigmatising communications strategy to be implemented that is transparent and applied across all animal products;

Motion for a resolution

11. Invites the Commission to communicate more effectively on virtuous practices and to assist the livestock sector in its efforts to make progress, 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;

Amendment

11. Invites the Commission to communicate more effectively on good practices by including the minimum EU animal welfare legislative standards on an EU-wide method-of-production and origin labelling, and to assist the animal production sector in its efforts to make progress, 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;

Motion for a resolution

13. Points out that practices intended to improve animal well-being usually 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 for pregnant sows would require a 30-year transition period to ensure that the additional costs incurred are recouped from the market, and that the least onerous way of introducing this is to construct new buildings, something that can only be done with the cooperation of the authorities in issuing building permits;

Amendment

13. Points out that practices intended to improve animal well-being usually can incur in new 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 for pregnant sows and farrowing crates is much needed and would require a transition period, as it might require the construction of new buildings, something that can only be done with the cooperation of the relevant authorities;

Motion for a resolution

14. Stresses that some measures believed to improve animal welfare are in fact counterproductive and may undermine other aspects of sustainability, namely welfare and health safety-related issues, as well as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; cites, by way of example, that keeping rabbits in the open air increases stress and mortality levels, and that installing collective cages in rabbitries leads to aggressive behaviour among does, causing stress, injury and reduced performance;

Amendment

14. deleted

Motion for a resolution

15. Notes the multifaceted complexity of the central, thorny welfare problem in pig farming, namely tail biting; observes that the technical difficulty encountered in the extensive research into and analysis of risk factors throughout the EU has meant that no reliable solutions whatsoever have been found;

Amendment

15. Stresses that the cruel practice of routine tail-docking, due to substandard housing conditions and a lack of effective enrichment materials, continues to be a serious issue on pig farms in the EU, despite provisions in the EU legislation, namely the Council Directive 2008/120/EC, that ban these practices; is concerned that currently only one Member State has implemented a ban, and observes that there is a wealth of technical and practical information on methods of preventing tail-biting, including those published by the European Commission, that producers should put into place with immediate effect;

Amendment

15 a. Underlines that in the context of food safety, environment, climate action, animal welfare and equality between Member States, the Commission should ensure full enforcement of Directives, and urges the Commission that in the event of violations by the Member States she imposes strong sanctions, starting with the routine docking of piglet tails, which has no longer been allowed in the EU since 1991;

Amendment

15 b. Calls for Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs to be revised to inter alia remove the 28 day exemption for confining sows in individual stalls and to ensure that the animals are kept in group housing throughout the entire gestation period and farrowing;

Amendment

15 c. Calls on the Commission to propose improvedl egislative requirements for pigs, specifically to end surgical castration, to increase minimum space requirements, incentivise the use of partially slatted floors, phase out individual stalls for pregnant sows and promote loose housing in farrowing pens;

Motion for a resolution

16. Stresses the need for amendments to the veterinary rules covering pig farms to take account of progress in the field of piglet castration;

Amendment

16. Stresses the need for amendments to the veterinary rules covering pig farms to take account of progress in the field of alternatives to piglet castration;

Motion for a resolution

17. 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 medicines on farms and to allow veterinarians to leave them there;

Amendment

17. Invites the Commission to favour the uptake of non-castration and immuno-castration methods and take all the legislative measures to phase out piglet castration by 2028; in the meanwhile invites the Commission to lay down a EU list of the available products and protocols for the use of analgesia and anaesthesia for piglet castration; until 2028, asks the Commission to insist on surgical castration to be carried out by veterinarians only with an algesia and anaesthesia;

Amendment

17 a. Regrets that beak trimming is one of the symbols of intensification in livestock farming and is still routinely practiced for chicken, turkeys, laying hens and ducks across the EU; calls on the EU Commission to ban the practice of beak trimming in the EU and to improve housing systems that fulfil the needs of these animals; notes that dehorning and castration are common mutilations in cattle, sheep, and goat farming, and calls on the Commission to ensure that these and all other systemic mutilations will be forbidden by law;

Amendment

17 b. Stresses that intensive livestock farming, due to the high densities and concentration of animals, increases risk of higher disease rates among farm animals and results in an increase in the use of antimicrobials on farms;

Amendment

17 c. Calls for a transition from intensive environment towards sustainable farming systems, developed in the partnership with the farming community, with practices that are not dependenton the use of antimicrobials in animal husbandry;

Amendment

17 d. Stresses the importance to stop supporting intensive farming practices with the aim to reduce the overall number of animals kept in the EU for agricultural purposes;

Motion for a resolution

18. Applauds the Commission for publishing, on 12 May 2021, strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture, which pay particular attention to animal welfare, and welcomes the fact that Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries is drafting an own-initiative report on these guidelines;

Amendment

18. Applauds the Commission for publishing, on 12 May 2021, strategic guidelines for a more sustainable EU aquaculture, which pay particular attention to animal welfare, and welcomes the fact that Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries is drafting an own-initiative report on these guidelines, but at the same time emphasizes that there is still a need for EU legislation to secure the welfare of fish;

Amendment

19 a. Urges the introduction of comprehensive animal welfare legislation, with a harmonised implementation;

Amendment

19 b. Seeks reassurance that any harmonisation of the legislative framework will not lead to a decline in animal welfare standards or lowering of ambitions to improve animal welfare;

Motion for a resolution

20. Urges the Commission to inform consumers and raise their awareness of the reality of livestock farming and the diversity and origin of production methods by showing, without dogmatism, the care and attention that farmers pay to their animals;

Amendment

20. Urges the Commission to inform consumers and raise their awareness of the reality of animal welfare problems associated with animal production farming and its real impact on the environment, loss of biodiversity and climate change, by introducing a mandatory EU method of production and origin label, covering all the stages of the life of the animal and including the farming, transport, and slaughter methods, and by thus showing the diversity and origin of production methods and its implications;

Amendment

20 a. Considers that sectors that have a major impact on environmental, climate and animal welfare issues should not be promoted by the EU and therefore calls on the Commission to cease funding promotion campaigns to support animal products,

Amendment

20 b. Stresses the importance of high animal welfare standards, including during transport and slaughter, and underlines that a high level of animal welfare is essential for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation;

Amendment

20 c. Urges the Commission and the Member States to follow-up on the statement by the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg on the Council conclusions on animal welfare during maritime long distances transport to third countries and to support their call to set up an EU-wide ban of long-distance transports of livestock to third countries by road and by sea and to implement this in the upcoming revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

Motion for a resolution

21. Calls on the Commission to reword its regulatory framework to make it clearer, with a view not to tightening rules up but rather to making the objectives and indicators more easily comprehensible and, thereby, to leaving less room for interpretation and enabling uniform national transposition among Member States; suggests updating the general directive to include the Commission’s objectives and expectations regarding the welfare of farm animals and working on species-specific directives, with due account for the nature of livestock farming, the various stages of the animals’ lives, on-farm practices unrelated to livestock farming, and the diversity of soil and weather conditions;

Amendment

21. Calls on the Commission to reword its regulatory framework to improve the welfare of animals in the EU, make it clearer and comprehensive setting up, among others, objectives and indicators that are more easily comprehensible and, thereby, leaving less room for interpretation and enabling uniform national transposition among Member States; suggests updating the General Directive in accordance with the latest scientific knowledge and the five domains model and working on species-specific directives, with due account for the nature of livestock farming, the various stages of the animals’ lives from breeding to death and the diversity of soil and weather conditions;

Amendment

21 a. Recalls that mink farming can act as a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 and future strains of the coronavirus and significantly compromises animal welfare and therefore strongly welcomes the initiative presented at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 28 June 2021 by Austria and the Netherlands on the issue of fur farming in the EU, and notes that a number of Member States have expressed their support for the proposal; reiterates its call on the Commission to undertake appropriate action to prohibit fur farming in Europe due to animal welfare, ethical and public health concerns, and also urges the Commission to ban imports of fur from mink and raccoon dogs;

Motion for a resolution

22. Invites the Commission to clarify its framework for monitoring Member States and punishing them for any non-compliance;

Amendment

22. Urges the Commission to clarify its framework for monitoring Member States and punishing them for any non-compliance, and invites the Commission to put forward an effective monitoring and sanction system, to ensure that detrimental practices will be tackled, and responsible parties made legally accountable for any cruelty and suffering inflicted on animals;

Amendment

22 a. Urges the Commission to start infringement procedures against systemically non-compliant Member States in the implementation and enforcement of existing animal welfare legislation;

Motion for a resolution

23. Asks the Commission to accompany any decision with a scientific and economic impact assessment (including a market study) taking into account the diversity of farming methods in each sector in the European Union and analysing the situation from both the animal’s (species by species and at different stages of production) and the farmer’s perspective;

Amendment

23. Asks the Commission when carrying out a scientific, economic and sustainable impact assessment (including a market study) to take into account the diversity of farming methods in each sector in the European Union and analysing the situation from the farmer’s perspective, but especially the animal’s perspective (species by species and at different stages of production);

Motion for a resolution

24. 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 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;

Amendment

24. 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 animal production-farming systems; encourages the sharing of ‘good’ practices between animal production-farming sectors and countries; wishes to see the development of tools to encourage pioneering animal production farmers to participate in development projects; asks for NGOs, animal welfare scientists and animal production farmers 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;

Amendment

25 a. Stresses that the Farm to Fork Strategy recognises the urgent need to improve animal welfare and broaden its scope, highlighting the benefits it brings for animals, food quality, reduction of the need for medication and preservation of biodiversity, and following the latest scientific advice;

Amendment

25 b. Underlines that it is essential for the EU to take into account third country compliance with animal welfare standards, and emphasizes that all animal products imported into the EU should be produced in full compliance with EU legislation, including the relevant animal welfare legislation;

Motion for a resolution

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

Amendment

26. deleted

Amendment

26 a. Is of the opinion that animals should no longer be slaughtered in the EU according to methods that cause additional distress, such as the electrical water bath method stunning of poultry and CO2 stunning of pigs, and urges the Member States to ensure that all animals slaughtered in the EU are stunned prior to slaughter, without any exceptions, as confirmed by the European Court of Justice ruling C-336/19 of 17 December 2020 that Member States have the right to introduce mandatory pre-slaughter stunning;

Amendment

26 b. Calls the Commission to adopt an EU wide ban on any traditional or cultural use of animals that implies mistreatment and suffering;

Amendment

26 c. Underlines the importance of heat plans to protect animals during heat waves, and urges th eMember States to develop adequate and effective heat plans, by taking into account keeping fewer animals in stables by setting up breeding restrictions before the start of the summer, the implementation of measures to prevent the occurence of heat stress in animals, lowering the slaughtering speed in slaughterhouses in order to limit the amount of animals arriving at the slaughterhouse at the same time, setting up maximum waiting times at slaughterhouses, mandatory ventilation in all vehicles used to transport animals and performing additional, adequate controls during heat waves;

Motion for a resolution

27. Deplores the lack of a return on investment for farmers who take part in voluntary animal welfare recognition schemes; notes, further, that animal welfare labelling will only prove successful if a return on investment is forthcoming from the higher price point;

Amendment

27. Notes the lack of a return on investment for farmers who take part in voluntary animal welfare recognition schemes; therefore, calls on the European Commission to put forward a European, harmonised and mandatory method-of-production and origin labelling system, that provides information about the farming, transport, and slaughter methods as well as information on the welfare of the animals involved, covering all the stages of the life of the animal;

Motion for a resolution

28. Stresses that the introduction of animal welfare labelling requires, at an early stage, harmonised rules drawn up in collaboration with farmers and based on clear scientific indicators; calls for consideration to be given to an EU framework for voluntary labelling covering all livestock farms, so as to limit the risks of distorting competition in the internal market while leaving sufficient room for private initiatives;

Amendment

28. Stresses that the introduction of animal welfare labelling requires, at an early stage, harmonised rules drawn up in collaboration with all relevant actors along the food chain (including farmers, NGOs and consumer organisations) and based on clear scientific indicators; calls for consideration to be given to an EU framework for mandatory labelling covering all farmed animal species, so as to limit the risks of distorting competition in the internal market;

Motion for a resolution

29. Asks the Commission to propose an EU framework for voluntary animal welfare labelling which is linked to EU rules – which must be its basis – and which invites the Member States to record the various approaches used; calls for its specifications to be drawn up according to a technically realistic approach and for this EU framework to ensure that value is redistributed towards livestock farmers;

Amendment

29. Asks the Commission to propose an EU framework for mandatory animal welfare labelling based on specifications to be drawn up according to a technically realistic approach and for this EU framework to ensure that value is redistributed towards animal production farmers;

Motion for a resolution

30. Invites the Commission to conduct an in-depth examination of the possible implications of introducing mandatory labelling requirements at EU level, drawing in particular on experience gained in recent public labelling schemes in some Member States;

Amendment

30. Invites the Commission to conduct an in-depth examination of introducing mandatory labelling requirements at EU level, drawing in particular on experience gained in recent public labelling schemes in some Member States, and underlines that such a method-of-production and origin label should be species-specific, cover all the stages of the life of the animal, including farming, transport, and slaughter methods and should be applied to all animal products, in order to increase transparency, empower consumers and create a level-playing field;

Amendment

30 a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to annually report to the Parliament on their actions to improve the welfare of animals kept on farms in the EU;

Motion for a resolution

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

Amendment

31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the parliaments of the Member States.