 |
• Harry Blokhuis: The last mile
• Interview Aldin Hilbrands: A roadmap for the future
• Cluster groups define top priorities
• Consumer perception
• Marketing and communication
• Take a look at our updated website |
|
|
|
 |
|
Harry Blokhuis: The last mile
Professor of Ethology
Swedish University of Agriculture Science
As the European Animal Welfare Platform (EAWP) project enters its final months, we are proud of the exciting results that have been achieved so far. In this Newsletter we present an overview of what these achievements are as well as what remains to be done. |
|
|
A lot of important work has been carried out and the sustained involvement of so many participants must be praised. Now we are facing the last mile and, yet again, a broad consultation of stakeholders is under way. I thank all our partners for their hard work in these last months before we eventually submit the final EAWP report.
The EAWP project has gained substantial momentum since our last Newsletter was published. With more than 200 responses from stakeholders in a variety of businesses and EC countries, our first round of consultation has yielded interesting and encouraging results. EAWP experts and cluster group members have been analysing the incoming feed-back, and preparing 'strategic approaches' to solve each of the animal welfare problems that had previously been identified and prioritized. Each strategy document will provide some background to the welfare problem, describe its impact and frequency of occurrence, and identify existing best practice for dealing with the problem. It will also specify short and long term goals as well as the R&D required to identify or underpin the welfare improvement strategy.
The sterling work carried out by our experts in the product cluster groups and the breadth of the stakeholder consultation process guarantees the quality and relevance of the final EAWP output. The fact that we could reach a common understanding and consensus on farm animal welfare issues - not to say a consensus among so many, seemingly conflicting interest groups is an outstanding achievement. This multi stakeholder approach is not only unique to EAWP but it also significantly adds to the legitimacy of the project's findings. On behalf of our Platform members, I thank all stakeholders for their participation in the consultation process.
Three years after EAWP kicked off as a project under the 7th EU Framework Programme, we now have a sound base on which to build the next steps. The strategic approach documents that are being written will provide robust and valuable material for future animal welfare policies and on-farm management. Furthermore, our identification of those welfare issues and related topics that remain controversial or incompletely charted, e.g. the economics of welfare, may guide recommendations for future research in a follow-on project. |
|
| Harry Blokhuis EAWP Project Leader Coordinator |
• Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Aldin Hilbrands:
A roadmap for the future
Senior manager Product Integrity
Royal Ahold
Impressive co-operative work within the framework of the European Animal Welfare Platform (EAWP) has been done in the past year. Three years after the project kicked off, the most important animal welfare issues have been prioritized and a broad consultation was held among a variety of stakeholders. In an interview with Aldin Hilbrands for this Newsletter, we look back at what has been achieved so far, and what is left to be done in the upcoming months. |
|
|
Aldin Hilbrands has been one of the driving forces since the very beginning of the EAWP project. Previously, he was on the Advisory Committee of the Welfare Quality Project, where he was asked to give a business perspective on academic research findings using practical knowledge and experience. Setting and implementing standards to protect the consumer is a key feature of his professional life, where he is Senior Manager Product Integrity at Royal Ahold's Corporate Centre in Amsterdam.
A unique feature at EAWP is its multi-stakeholder approach. What is your experience in co-operating with such a variety of stakeholders and different interests?
At first it was not clear how we could find common ground between the processing industry, farmers, retail companies, NGO's and scientists as far as animal welfare issues are concerned. Initially, we got the question - from farmers to slaughterhouses: 'What's in it for me?' That is a legitimate question. Building a common understanding amongst numerous and diverse stakeholders requires a lot of transparency and openness. At first glance you would expect conflicting interests to hamper this process. In practice though, it all went well, even beyond expectation. There was a lot of discussion - but it was to the point. Experts, both in the cluster groups and among stakeholders, speak the same 'language' The NGO partners, such as the RSPCA and the Dutch Dierenbescherming, are also very familiar with the needs, possibilities and restrictions surrounding private business. We are very pleased that we managed to find a good balance and to reach consensus on animal welfare issues at farm and slaughterhouse level.
EAWP has exceeded the three year limit. What is the current state of the project?
Bringing EAWP partners from several countries and with different backgrounds together, setting up a management structure, agreeing on the project organisation, getting cluster groups to work successfully and analysing lots of data, has taken more time than expected. Now, we are on track and we see tangible results. Once we had found our cruising speed, each production chain was mapped and the welfare issues, from primary breeding to slaughter, were identified in five product clusters: beef + dairy, farmed salmon, eggs, poultry meat and pork. At that stage, it was decided to move beyond the expert opinions, and to ask for input and priorities among a wider audience of stakeholders. They were asked to grade the full list of potential welfare issues according to two criteria: the relative severity of the issue and the number of animals affected. No less than 201 fully documented questionnaires were received. This resulted in a prioritized list of more than a hundred animal welfare issues across the six product groups.
How do you look back at the consultation process?
On two occasions, interested stakeholder groups were given the opportunity to react to the initial expert findings in the EAWP cluster groups: first to prioritise and grade their perceived welfare issues and to list these; second to provide feedback on the final list of welfare issues. A broad consultation outside the inner expertise of the EAWP cluster groups was both advisable and necessary since we wanted to go beyond simply obtaining consensus between the sixty or so experts involved in the project itself. Input from the these external stakeholders has been very valuable. It covered a broad variety of specific interests and countries, and will add to the credibility of the EAWP outputs. Indeed, the results are extremely relevant in practical and applicable terms as well as in generating a firm knowledge base for further studies
The number of farm animal welfare issues that were identified, is quite extensive. In addition, conditions vary widely among different countries within the EU. How did EAWP address this challenge?
We did our best to describe as many situations as possible, and to get feedback from as many interest groups as was feasible across the EU given our available budget, people and means. Yes, creating this Platform and sustaining a process that spans several European countries was challenging at times. But we were able to manage it by keeping an eye on the final objective. We also set clear limits to our ambitions: for example we only considered farmed salmon within the fish cluster, and we only covered mainstream production systems.
What remains to be done?
The prioritised lists of key farm animal welfare issues, as generated by the stakeholder consultation, are currently being used as the basis for writing a series of strategic papers on what should be done to overcome these welfare problems. We expect to have drafted these by this summer, after which a second round of consultation amongst stakeholders will be organized. The idea is to ensure that no topical issues have been overlooked. Towards the end of the project we will conduct a communication campaign, disseminating the EAWP findings amongst policy makers and the private sector.
What will be the final output of the Platform?
Based on the results of our cluster groups and feedback from a great variety of stakeholders, the EAWP is drafting a 'strategic approach-document' for each of the key welfare issues; this gives a broader perspective as well as descriptions of the underlying causes of that particular animal welfare issue, its likely impacts, its monitoring and auditing, existing current best practice and/or legislation, and suggestions for short and long-term goals. The document may also conclude that we don't have all the answers yet. For example, I have been working in the 'farmed salmon' cluster where we clearly see that for some welfare issues there is still a lot of scientific research required. For these issues, it is therefore more difficult to present a 'best practice' and we recommend the EC to invest in appropriate research into the causes and reduction of the welfare issue.
So much has been invested in EAWP over the past three years, in terms of people, network building, consultation, gaining insight and understanding of welfare issues. Will all this come to a halt, after you will have submitted the final report?
The EAWP objective was to improve animal welfare by exchanging knowledge, expertise and best practice amongst experts and stakeholders. In this, we will succeed and common ground has already been found. But other approaches must be followed in order to ensure that our findings are built upon, e.g. on the practical feasibility of implementation, on the economics of welfare improvement, on prioritization of R&D, on checking and balancing welfare issues against other EC policies. Creating this Platform has been immensely valuable. Should it be continued? We certainly think it should, in one way or another. However, financial support is required to ensure continuity and sustainability. Maybe we will continue as a stakeholders' platform or perhaps the EC will value the continuity of our work and contribute to its upkeep.
Cluster groups define animal welfare priorities
In discussing farm animal welfare issues, it is clear that a specific approach must be followed for various species and product groups. Because the underlying biology and the characteristics of the various animal products are very different and welfare issues are quite diverse, the EAWP management team reached an early decision to split the Platform's activities into five clusters or product groups: poultry meat, eggs, pork, beef and dairy cattle, and farmed salmon.
Members of these cluster groups are experts in their own field. They live in several different regions of Europe and represent a variety of interests: producers, processors, retailers, NGO's, scientists etc. The cluster groups are commended for effectively pursuing the full EAWP process. In identifying the key farm animal welfare issues and suggesting roadmaps for the future, all clusters proceeded via the same consecutive steps:
| • |
Agree the scope of the production system |
| • |
Map the production chain |
| • |
Agree all possible welfare issues within the animal product chain |
| • |
Consult stakeholders and ask them to grade the welfare issues |
| • |
Analyse the data to generate a list of key issues |
| • |
Write 'strategic documents' which includes best practices and short and long term goals as well as gaps in knowledge and suggestions for further research. |
As our Platform nears the completion of drafts of each of the animal welfare strategic documents, we present in this Newsletter some of the key issues that were identified in each cluster product group after feedback was received from the consultation of a broad range of stakeholders. For full details and a complete table of welfare issues, we refer you to the EAWP-website www.animalwelfareplatform.eu. |
|
 |
|
| Poultry meat cluster |
|
|
|
| Cluster leader: |
|
Norbert Rank |
| E-mail address: |
|
norbert.rank@de.mcd.com |
| Issue groups: |
|
Genetics, husbandry, health/husbandry, manual catching, transport, electric stunning |
| No. of prioritized issues: |
|
14 |
| No. of potential issues: |
|
49 |
| Some key issues: |
|
Problems associated with fast growth rate, space allowance, pododermatitis, hang-to-stun time |
|
|
 |
|
| Egg cluster |
|
|
|
| Cluster leader: |
|
Andrew Joret |
| E-mail address: |
|
andrew.joret@noblefoods.co.uk |
| Issue groups: |
|
Design of enriched cages, electric stunning, catching, transport, lairage, pullet rearing, vices/mutilations, health/injury |
| No. of prioritized issues: |
|
21 |
| No. of potential issues: |
|
51 |
| Some key issues: |
|
Transport time, thermal comfort/lairage ventilation, beak trimming |
|
|
| |
|
| Pork cluster |
|
|
|
| Cluster leader: |
|
Trine Vig Tamstorf |
| E-mail address: |
|
tvt@danishmeat.dk |
| Issue groups: |
|
Mutilations, transport, lairage, space allowance, bedding/flooring, air quality, enrichment, farrowing, mixing animals |
| No. of prioritized issues: |
|
23 |
| No. of potential issues: |
|
86 |
| Some key issues: |
|
Castration, aggression in the lairage, flooring (design) |
|
|
 |
|
| Beef and Dairy cluster |
|
|
|
| Cluster leader: |
|
Gabriele Mezzadri |
| E-mail address: |
|
mezzadri@inalca.it |
| Issue groups: |
|
Transport/handling, genetics, health, management/husbandry, stun/slaughter, mutilations, regional/hot climates |
| No. of prioritized issues: |
|
28 |
| No. of potential issues: |
|
141 |
| Some key issues: |
|
Stress and injury during transport, extreme genetics/selection for high milk yields, lameness |
|
|
  |
|
| Farmed salmon cluster |
|
|
|
| Cluster leader: |
|
Olav Breck and Ragnar Nortvedt |
| E-mail address: |
|
Olav.Breck@marineharvest.com
Ragnar.Nortvedt@marineharvest.com |
| Issue groups: |
|
Health and disease, water quality, transport, crowding/stunning/killing, stripping |
| No. of prioritized issues: |
|
21 |
| No. of potential issues: |
|
70 |
| Some key issues: |
|
Diseases, water quality (temperature, oxygen, suspended solids, salinity), time fish out of water before stunning |
|
|
|
Consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare
For a more in-depth understanding of European citizens' concerns, knowledge and attitudes on animal welfare when they purchase animal products, we refer to an expert report by Mara Miele of Cardiff University, based on research carried out in the Welfare Quality project. The innovative research was based on discussions in seven focus groups in seven European countries, among people from very different socio-demographic and lifestyle backgrounds. These qualitative insights were complemented by a representative population survey in the same seven countries, carried out by computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI).
The focus group discussions offered some interesting key findings on perceptions and attitudes. First and foremost, there is a general lack of knowledge of contemporary farming practices and animal welfare issues across the different countries. Most of the focus group participants seemed to derive their knowledge from the mass media at the time of negative news, such as salmonella outbreaks. However, there is clearly a common spontaneous concern - with issues related to 'outdoor access' and 'confinement in closed environments.' For many consumers welfare corresponds with positive emotions in animal life.
The population survey confirmed respondents' interest in animal welfare and found a widespread demand for information. However, 'interest' and 'concern' do not always translate into buying preferences - with maybe eggs as an exception.
In its conclusions, the report states that consumer behaviour and actions are strongly dependent on their trust in experts, food suppliers and regulatory institutions.
Marketing and communication of animal welfare:
a review of existing tools, strategies and practice
This paper on was written by Professor Henry Buller of Exeter University. Starting from consumers', food chain actors' and producers' concerns about farm animal welfare, he sees various drivers that explain the increased interest; these include ethical concern, product quality, added value, brand differentiation, market access, professional status, pro-environmental practice and regulatory conformity.
Farm animal welfare is becoming a component of more visible differentiation and an element of less visible standardisation - and a tension is developing between them as the welfare agenda progresses. Farm animal welfare promotion can be achieved through market-, regulatory-, and quality strategies.
The commercial strategies of retailers, food manufacturers, farmers' groups and other food chain actors are critical in promulgating farm animal welfare as a means of gaining higher prices, a means of gaining competitive advantage, or as a means of demonstrating corporate ethical responsibility (and through it consumer fidelity). Buller explains the following strategies: validation of the claims by food chain actors about the quality of their products; actively creating markets; product segmentation; labelling and assurance schemes; branding; social and ethical responsibility and accountability; aiming at external recognition; and encouraging exclusivity.
In his conclusions, he sees elements suggesting that raising the visibility of farm animal welfare for consumers may not necessarily be the most advantageous way forward. Rather the focus might increasingly be on establishing the validity and effectiveness of animal welfare conditions, and on improvements within the supply chains.
Take a look at our updated website
The EAWP website has been recently updated. We invite you to take a look and to find out more details about activities in the past months.
|
|
|
|
|
