Activities of Francisco GUERREIRO related to 2020/2085(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT Implementation report on on-farm animal welfare
Amendments (55)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
— having regard to the Commission Communication of 30 June 2021 on the European Citizens' Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’ (C(2021)4747),
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
— having regard to the Council Conclusions of 7 December 2020 on an EU-wide animal welfare label (13691/20),
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas animal welfare is a sensitive and increasingly important ethical issue in our society;
Amendment 31 #
Aa. whereas Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognises that animals are sentient beings and stipulates that the Union and Member States shall pay full regard to their welfare requirements in formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture and fisheries policies;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas European food-production standards, including animal welfare criteria, are among the highest and most rigorous in the worldin the world, yet still need improvement;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas more uniform application of existing animal welfare legislation and updating according to latest scientific knowledge is a prerequisite to raising these standards;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas some 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 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas animal welfare goes hand in hand with farmers’ and farm operators' welfare and both should be given appropriate resources;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the direct link between animal and human health and wellbeing; whereas animal welfare is also linked to the environment, as best explored through the One Welfare framework;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas scientific and technical developments have improved our understanding of animal sentience, behaviour and welfare;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas significant difficulties were encountered in the collection of data on the implementation of on-farm animal welfare legislation as regards both the quality and the availability of data, due to lack of monitoring and data collection requirements on Member States;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the current legislation is partly obsolete and lags behind the scientific advances and technical progress made in farming practices, as well as citizens’ demands regarding animal welfare;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas EU animal welfare legislation does not cover allestablishes species-specific minimum welfare standards only for pigs, laying hens, broilers and calves, while there is no species-specific legislation for other species farmed for food, including fish;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas initiatives other than EU legislation and official checks have played a part in the continuous improvement of farming practices; whereas many member states have implemented own initiative animal welfare standards that are more stringent than those of the EU;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the Member States have been given considerable discretion over how to set requirements and assess compliance with them; whereas the Member States have taken different approaches to the allocation of resources and prioritisation of official checks; whereas this has led to different levels of compliance and risks disadvantaging compliant farmers;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas the directives on pigs (for pregnant sows), calves and laying hens have led to some positive, but limited, 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; whereas the species- specific directives and in particular the general Directive 98/58/EC have had modest effect in terms of improving animal welfare;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the laying hens directive has been a success in providing good definitions for the different production systems; whereas this success is limited, however, given the broad range of approaches applied by the Member States to its implementation, which hasand the Directive’s lack of clear, mandatory and comprehensive provisions, which have enabled distorted competition to persist in the single market;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas a distinction should be drawn between anecdotalthere are documented cases of non- compliance, which are the focus of too much atten - in some cases widespread - which shows the need to produce fit-for-purpose legislation, and the vast majority ofensure compliance, to ensure a level playing field for those farmers who do follow the rules;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas documentation from whistleblowers has on occasion served to expose cases of non-compliance and raise awareness of the need to make animal welfare legislation fit-for-purpose;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas particular attention should be paid to ensuring that ourconsistent political decisions do not weakenlead the European livestock- production sector, which would lead to to shift to higher quality, lower quantity production, in line with environmental, animal welfare and dietary concerns, whilst avoiding 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 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas labelling can only be effective if it is easy for consumers to understand, designharmonised for an integrated single market, applied to all animal products, and underpinned by a coherent EU trade policy;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas the aim in legislative action on labelling should be to harmonise and improve the implementation of regulations and standards;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a Welcomes the Commission’s evaluation and revision of the animal welfare legislation by 2023, including on animal transport and the slaughter of animals, that aims to align it with the latest scientific evidence, broaden its scope, make it easier to enforce and ensure a higher level of animal welfare, as stated in the Farm to Fork strategy;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges the great strides made by some livestock farmers on their farms, particularly in improving animal welfare, and their drive and commitment to forward thinking and progress;
Amendment 172 #
1a. Acknowledges that the development of certain farming methods and technologies aiming at increasing production and/or reducing production costs have negative consequences on the welfare of the animals; Regrets that the intensification in animal production, which is the result of a agricultural model focusing on exports, runs counter to animal welfare;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. 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 animal welfare; 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 results 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 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Recognises that the Covid-19 pandemic is a reminder of the relation of human, animal and planetary health; expresses concern that intensive agriculture is a risk factor in further pandemics, due to its role in biodiversity loss and climate change, as well as posing a direct threat to human health through the spill-over of zoonotic diseases from livestock;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to update animal welfare rules in the light of scientific progress in this field and to establish minimum welfare standards for food-producing species that are presently not covered by species-specific legislation;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that changes must be made afterin accordance with scientific evaluation and with a view to meeting citizens’ needs and expectations, with due account for consumers’ choices and purchasing power;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
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, animal welfare and economic components of sustainability, as well as ergonomics for farmers and health- related aspects, especially taking into account the One Health approach; recalls that animal welfare must be coupled with an sustainable economic approach if it is to prove successful in the long run;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. StressNotes that any change must bs to improve considered in the light of the time needed for livestock farmers to implement it and the inertia it may entail- farm animal welfare need an appropriate transition period;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Warns that any potential changes to cageelcomes the ECI 'End the Cage Age'; highlights that the shift to cage-free systems will need to be accompanied by precise and unambiguousclear and precise definitions 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 behaviours to the extent they desire;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that investments in improved animal welfare may incur higher production costs, no matter the type of livestock farming concerned; notes that, unless these costs need to be 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; recalls that according to Eurobarometer 442 Europeans recognise a price premium is justified for animal welfare-friendly products, considering the level of investment required to implement new standards and legislation, and concluded that the majority of Europeans are prepared to pay more for products sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that previous CAP funds available within the second pillar were insufficiently allocated to the objective of animal welfare; calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States' strategic plans provide support and direction to farmers in improving animal welfare standards; 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 all animal products on welfare- related aspects of the entire production; calls, further, for a positive and non- stigmatising communications strategy to be implementedycle, including the method of production;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Urges Member States to exclude the possibility of farmers receiving CAP voluntary coupled support for cattle whose final destination is the sale for activities related to bullfighting, by proportionally excluding the number of heads of cattle from payments;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
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 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that some measures believed to improve animal welfare are in factmay be 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 performanceif they are not developed holistically, taking into account welfare alongside sustainability, and acknowledging and enabling reductions in livestock density where this is necessary;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
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 and the consequent widespread practice of tail-docking; observes that tail biting occurs due to the stress, frustration and overall poor welfare experienced by pigs in overcrowded, artificial and stimuli-deprived conditions; stresses that Council Directive 2008/120/EC prohibits routine tail-docking and that the Commission has published guidelines with practical information for farmers to implement to avoid tail biting; regrets that so far only two Member States have prohibited the practice of tail-docking, and the majority of action plans submitted by other Member States contain insufficient detail; Stresses that providing appropriate environmental enrichment, particularly materials that can be manipulated and good animal husbandry, can significantly reduce the problem of tail-biting;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Urges the European Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against Member States that have failed to act to ensure the compliance with the ban on routine tail-docking in pigs;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
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;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Invites the Commission to ensure the availability in the various Member States ofHighlights the need to eliminate piglet castration without pain relief, and further to phase out piglet castration, as previously aimed for in the Brussels Declaration, by 2028; Invites the Commission, in the meantime, to lay down 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 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Regrets that beak trimming is still routinely practiced for chickens, turkeys, laying hens and ducks across the European Union, despite various Member States' initiatives to regulate or prohibit the practice; calls on the Commission to ban the practice of beak trimming across the EU and to improve housing systems that fulfil the needs of the animals;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
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 which also address animal welfare; urges the Commission to deliver a legislative proposal establishing minimum welfare standards for farmed fish;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Invites the Commission to improve the internal market by devising a harmonised, shared strategy on animal welfare in European countries, while monitoring the proper implementation of and compliance with existing legislation throughout Member States;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
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 in accordance with the latest scientific knowledge, to include the Commission’s objectives and citizens' 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 354 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. InvitUrges the Commission to clarify itsdevelop an effective framework for monitoring of and in Member States and punishing them for anyto ensure that detrimental practices are tackled and to begin infringement proceedings for non- compliances;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
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; notes that the improvement of animal welfare should be the primary consideration for legislative proposals to update and expand the body of EU animal welfare legislation;
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
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 and animal welfare scientists 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 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Urges the Commission to ensure that the EU continuously raises animal welfare awareness with its trade partners, through bilateral cooperation and binding requirements in bilateral trade agreements, and through work with international organisations such as OIE and FAO; calls on the Commission to promote a level-playing field for farmers, by applying equal standards to domestic and imported products, based on the need to protect the environment and to respond to ethical concerns, as permitted by WTO rules and in particular Article XX of the GATT;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Recalls that mink farming can act as a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 and future strains of the coronavirus and significantly compromises animal welfare; Strongly welcomes the initiative presented at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting of 28 June 2021 and supported by several Member States, on the issue of ending fur farming in the EU; supports their call on the European Commission to undertake appropriate action to prohibit fur farming in Europe due to animal welfare, ethical and public health concerns;
Amendment 397 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that the introduction of animal welfare labelling requires, at an early stage, harmonised rules drawn up in collaboration with farmall stakeholders and based on clear scientific indicators; calls for consideration to be given to an EU framework for voluntamandatory 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 399 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Asks the Commission to propose an EU framework for voluntary harmonised mandatory European 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, shows the method of production and additionally reflects the entire life cycle of the animals (including breeding, fattening, transport, slaughter); calls for its specifications to be drawn up according to a technically realistic approach, distinguishing different tiers ranging from minimum standards to premium level, and for this label to ensure that value is redistributed towards livestock farmers, to enable market-driven progress in animal welfare; Insists that the labelling scheme must be based on a clear set of technical references, with a protected use of the terms and claims made in marketing, to prevent misinformation of consumers and animal welfare-washing; recalls that, for consistency, processed products and ingredients of animal origin should also be labelled;
Amendment 403 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Recommends that the proposed animal welfare labelling scheme take into account the increased informational demands of consumers and the concurrent objectives of Farm to Fork as concerns sustainability, health and dietary concerns, alongside animal welfare; Notes that an animal welfare labelling system that includes the transporting distance has potential to incentivize consumers to buy products that are more local, in line with the Farm to Fork objectives;