DG(SANCO) MR FINAL

Transcription

1 River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1EZ,UK T: +44 (0) F: +44 (0) Reports by the Food and Veterinary Office that show failure to enforce provisions of Council Directive 2008/120/EC on the protection of pigs that require enrichment materials to be provided and that ban routine tail docking Council Directive 2008/120/EC which codifies Council Directive 91/630: Requires pigs to be provided with enrichment materials to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities Prohibits routine tail docking The provisions of Council Directive 2008/120/EC Paragraph 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to Council Directive 2008/120/EC provides that pigs must be given enrichment materials, specifically that they must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities, such as straw, hay, wood, sawdust, mushroom compost, peat or a mixture of such. Paragraph 8 of Chapter I of Annex I prohibits routine tail docking. It provides that: Before carrying out [tail docking], other measures shall be taken to prevent tail biting..., taking into account environment and stocking densities. For this reason inadequate environmental conditions or management systems must be changed. FVO reports show widespread non-compliance and failure to enforce Reports published by the Commission s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) over the last four years concerning 21 Member States show a widespread failure by the pig industry to comply with (i) the requirement to provide enrichment materials and (ii) the prohibition on routine tail docking and an equally pervasive failure by Member States to enforce this legislation. The FVO s findings are set out below: Austria: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO found that Lack of manipulable material is still a common deficiency. The FVO reported that in the farm visited in Carinthia chains fitted with plastic discs were accepted by the OV [Official Veterinarian] as suitable manipulable material. The CCA [Central Competent Authority] handbook [described by the FVO report as very comprehensive ] requires that where straw is not compatible with the slurry system, hanging material such as pieces of wood above the pens should be provided. However a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture apparently insisted that the manipulable substances in the handbook were only indicated as a recommendation and that chains are a suitable material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities, as required by Chapter I, point 4 of the Annex to Directive 2008/120/EC. This is worrying as the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have both made it clear that chains do not constitute effective enrichment materials. The Commission has said that chains may be used as supplement to destructible and rooting materials but not as a substitute for them. 1 Recommendation 4 of the FVO s report includes: Ensure that suitable material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities is provided to pigs, as required by Chapter I, point 4 of the Annex to Directive 2008/120/EC. Belgium: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO report states that Veterinary certificates are routinely issued by private practitioners on therapeutic grounds authorising farmers to carry out... tail docking and are accepted by the CA as sufficient grounds for this practice. The Directive does not suggest that the competent authority (CA) can rely on such veterinary 1 Answer by the European Commission (E-5360/09EN) to a Question from a Member of the European Parliament

2 certificates. Indeed veterinarians should not issue such certificates on a routine basis but only where they are satisfied that the farmer has first taken measures to change inadequate environmental conditions and management systems as required by paragraph 8 of Chapter I of the Annex to Council Directive 2008/120. The FVO also states no guidance is given by the Central Competent Authority (CCA) to inspectors as to how to assess the requirement that producers must take other measures to improve inadequate environmental or management systems before resorting to tail-docking. The FVO states Chains were accepted as a suitable type of manipulable material by one inspector even though they are not listed as such in the checklist guidance and do not enable proper investigation and manipulation as required in Chapter 1, point 4 of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC. Belgium: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO audit team visited one pig farm with breeding and fattening pigs. The report says: It was noted that as was seen during the previous supervised visits to pig farms in 2009, chains continue to be accepted as suitable manipulable material even though they are not listed as such in the checklist guidance which quotes the requirements of Chapter 1, point 4 of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC and they do not enable proper investigation and manipulation. The FVO report also says that although the inspector knew of many different materials (sugar beet, straw, wood shavings) to enable pigs to properly investigation and manipulate, no advice was offered to the farmer on their provision. Plastic balls or other toys were given to the younger piglets. An EFSA Opinion concludes that toys such as balls are not effective enrichment materials. Piglets on this farm were tail-docked at three days old. On the day of the FVO visit, the farmer received by fax an undated letter from his veterinarian stating that although efforts had been made to improve the environmental conditions on the farm, they had not curbed aggression sufficiently to prevent the need for continued mutilations. The FVO concludes that Problems with the assessment of measures taken to prevent tail-docking, [and] the provision of suitable manipulable material... were noted during the audit. This has not changed since the previous audit and is in breach of Paragraph 8 of Chapter I of Annex I and point 4 of Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC. Bulgaria: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO reports that the CA [competent authority] does not consider the provision of manipulable material to be a legal requirement and believes that it is only required in the case of aggression even though the Directive clearly requires all pigs to be provided with such materials irrespective of whether or not aggressive behaviour is taking place. Systematic tail docking is tolerated by the CA. The OVs accepted that mutilations were necessary to prevent tail biting, but there was no evidence of investigation by the CA as to whether efforts had been made by the farmer to improve the environmental conditions or management system before carrying out tail docking. Manipulable material was not available and the ventilation in the fattening sections was poor, resulting in a strong smell of ammonia, but the OV had not sufficiently assessed whether these factors meant that the farmer had not taken measures to improve the environmental conditions before resorting to tail docking. Cyprus: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL (Oct-Nov 2009) Inspectors in both regions visited by the FVO were content to accept operators' views that manipulable material was only required when mixing batches of weaners and not at all stages as required by Directive 2008/120/EC. No advice to the farmer on the provision of suitable material to fulfil this requirement was offered during the inspection in either region. The CA checklist states that straw or sawdust may be used, but gives no other guidance on this point. Cyprus: DG(SANCO) MR Final (General audit, Jan-Nov 2009) The FVO identified that due to lack of training, inspectors did not understand questions relating to manipulable material for pigs. Additionally it stated that the CAs had produced written procedures but they lacked detail on the assessment of welfare conditions of pigs. Czech Republic: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO visited two farms and found the use of materials such as plastic bottles and iron chains, which do not allow proper manipulation and investigation. One farm had recently introduced wooden pellets but they were not present in all pens. 2

3 The FVO found that Routine tail docking was carried out in both farms without sufficient action from the CA to ensure that the farmers had tried changing aspects of the environment or management. Therefore the FVO concluded that: Only limited efforts had been made to get better compliance with the requirements for manipulable material and tail docking was carried out systematically. Denmark: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO Mission found that: tail docking is still carried out systematically and only minimal material for manipulation and investigation is provided. The report further states: systematic tail docking in pigs was not considered as a non-compliance in the absence of efforts by the farmer to improve the environmental conditions or management system. It concludes: tail docking is still systematically performed without a sufficient investigation by the CA if efforts had been made by the farmer to improve the environmental conditions or management system, contrary to the provisions of Annex I, Chapter I, point 8 of Directive 2008/120/EC. Estonia: General Audit - DG(SANCO)8600/2009 The OV did not give any advice as regards ways of avoiding routine tail-docking. France: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO reports that mutilations, in particular routine tail docking, were carried out in all the farms visited contrary to the provisions of Directive 2008/120/EC. The FVO reports that insufficiently clear guidance is given by the CCA regarding the requirement to provide manipulable material for pigs. The FVO reports that that there was a general lack of manipulable material; furthermore, the use of chains for weaners was considered by the CA to be in line with the legislation. A list of materials such as the ones mentioned in Point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC is included in the national guideline; however, representatives from the CCA stated that they considered that list to be non-exhaustive, and that they considered chains to be a suitable manipulable material. The FVO stressed that chains cannot be considered in compliance with the requirements of Directive 2008/120/EC, as they are not suitable material for investigation. We are particularly concerned about the CCA s belief that a chain is a suitable manipulable material. This is not the view of EFSA. EFSA has examined the research and concluded that enrichment materials should be complex, changeable and destructible. 2 An EFSA Opinion concludes that toys such as chains, chewing sticks and balls are not effective enrichment materials. 3 The FVO concluded that non-compliances already highlighted in the previous FVO report still persist, and gaps in the guidelines together with poor enforcement action resulted in major deficiencies in the pig sector, including mutilations, not having been addressed by the CA. Germany: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO report found that:... the CA indicated that it was difficult to obtain proof that the necessary changes to management and the environment had been made, when a fattening holding that insists on docked piglets was outside the jurisdiction of the respective authority and frequently even located in another Member State. This issue was going to be discussed by the federal authorities, the Länder and industry in order to find a solution. The FVO concludes: There are multi-disciplinary initiatives on going at Federal, Land and local level on the issue of taildocking from which it is hoped to develop some practical guidance to reduce the need for taildocking of piglets. With regard to enforcement, the FVO team were informed by the CA in one region that lack of manipulable material resulted in a reduction in subsidy. 2 Scientific Report of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal (2007) 564, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from Commission on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal (2007) 611,

4 Greece: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL Material for manipulation and investigation was not provided in the pig farm visited by the FVO, with the exception of one hanging chain in some pens of the weaners' unit. Both EFSA and the Commission have made it clear that chains are not sufficient to provide for the manipulatory need of pigs and so are not effective enrichment materials. Routine tail docking was performed despite the Directive s requirement that farmers must change inadequate environmental conditions or management systems before carrying out tail docking. Hungary: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO team visited one farm and found that straw was readily available for all categories of pigs. However, Routine tail-docking was still considered to be unavoidable, even though a breeder farm supplying this farm did not carry out tail-docking. The report did find that that progress had been made in addressing all of the relevant recommendations from previous FVO audits. There was a high frequency of farm checks based on risk and corrective actions were taken although it appeared the latter were not uniformly applied in all countries. Italy: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO found that in Italy OVs are saying that manipulable material only needs to be provided when animals are aggressive or when groups are mixed. This is an inaccurate interpretation of the Directive. The Directive requires manipulable materials to be provided at all times even when there is no fighting and the group is not mixed. Despite the incorrect interpretation by OVs, the premises in Lombardia visited by the FVO had provided some types of manipulable material (pieces of wood, chains and tyres the FVO points out that the last two are unsuitable) for some categories of pigs, and given outside access for other pigs, but not all. The premises in Sardinia had made a lot of effort to include outdoor areas, and access to straw. However on neither premises was the provision of manipulable material done consistently. The FVO reports that in neither region that they visited in Italy was the competent authority attempting to assess if owners had taken all the steps necessary to improve environmental conditions prior to permitting tail docking. The FVO concluded that the CCA has not provided sufficient guidance and interpretation on certain requirements of Directive 2008/120/EC to enable OVs to effectively enforce official controls relating to... the provision of enrichment material (point 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex 1) and the practice of routine mutilations (second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter 1 of Annex 1). Italy: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL During the FVO visit to one farm there was insufficient manipulable material present and the farm operator said this was the normal amount provided. The FVO visit saw an inspection by OVs which correctly correctly identified several problems including insufficient manipulable material and some maintenance shortcomings. The report says: Other than possibly maintenance, the shortcomings reported on this day were not new. Lithuania: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL In the farm visited, the report found that conditions were generally satisfactory, except two of the fattening houses where pigs had to lie on top of each other to sleep or rest due to overstocking of approximately 35%, due to an error in calculating stocking density by the OV. There had been no training or guidance in the last two years on the relevant provisions of Article 3 and Annex 1 of Directive 2008/120/EC. Lithuania: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL This FVO report does not specifically mention manipulable materials. The audit team visited a large pig breeding holding, where the main responsible pig keeper was a veterinarian. The pigs were not tail-docked. The audit team found that The animal welfare conditions in the holding were good without signs of tail biting or fighting. Lithuania seems to be working to improve conditions on pig farms with inspections and provision of staff training and information. Luxembourg: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The FVO report states that the checklist used for inspections indicates the need for sufficient manipulable objects, without any suggestions of suitable materials to use. The report added that in both farms visited the 4

5 material for manipulation and investigation available to weaners and fatteners were chains, although in one of these farms various objects such as a tyre or a plastic container were hanging from the chains. EFSA has concluded that chains and tyres are not effective enrichment materials 4 and that plastic objects appear to be relatively ineffective at preventing tail biting. 5 The FVO reports that the checklist used by inspectors did not require any investigation of the reasons for routine tail docking and that this was not explored in the holdings visited where tail docking was carried out. Poland: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL In both farms visited by the FVO there was plenty of straw in the pens of all categories of pigs, which satisfied the requirement concerning permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities. In one of the two farms tail docking was not carried out. In the other farm piglets were being routinely tail docked and the inspector did not investigate if the farmer had first taken other preventive measures before resorting to tail docking. Portugal: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL Lack of manipulable material was observed in both farms visited by the FVO. The FVO reported that the CCA had not provided other levels of the CA with sufficient clarification on this issue. Portugal: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The report found that: Although in the farm visited the owner had made an effort in providing material to enrich the environment and some of the pig pens had been provided with flexible durable pipes made of hard plastic, both the legislation (Directive 2008/120/EC) and the national guidelines provide a list of materials for manipulation and investigation which are more appropriate to satisfy the ethological need of pigs for rooting (eg: straw, mushroom compost, wood). There was also insufficient quantity of manipulable material. This, among other issues, had been identified two years ago and in subsequent inspections and had not been rectified. The report concluded: While there have been certain improvements in getting better compliance in the pig sector, recommendations [from above report DG(SANCO) ] 5, in particular regarding manipulable material, overstocking, and care for sick animals and 7 concerning enforcement have not been fully addressed and require action. Romania: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL In both farms visited by the FVO, the materials provided did not allow proper manipulation and investigation. Routine tail docking was carried out in both farms without sufficient action from the CA to ensure that the farmers had tried changing aspects of the environment or management before resorting to tail docking. Romania: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL In connection to its inspection on group housing of sows, the report said that: The CCA requested Counties to communicate a change in policy on the hitherto habitual acceptance by the CA of routine tooth and tail docking of piglets. Slovakia: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL In the farm visited, the FVO found that Chains and plastic buckets were used as manipulable material in pens with fattening pigs. Such materials do not enable proper investigation and manipulation activities. This is in breach of Point 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC. In contrast the FVO noted there was plenty of straw and saw dust in sow and weaner pens and piglets had not been tail-docked. Slovenia: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL Iron chains were accepted by the OV as meeting the requirements to provide enrichment materials. However, EFSA has made it clear that metal chains are not effective enrichment materials. 6 Slovenia: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL The report states that: Slovenia wrongly considers that the Recommendations by the Council of Europe [which it has ratified] (adopted on the basis of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes) are not directly applicable. 4 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal (2007) 564, As 3 6 As 3 5

6 The FVO was looking at compliance with the then forthcoming partial sow stall ban. However with regard to enrichment in the unit visited, the OV found use of an inadequate material (plastic bags) as manipulable material in two weaner pens even though together with a sufficient quantity of another, adequate, manipulable material (straw). Spain: General Audit - DG (SANCO)/ final report The FVO visited the autonomous regions of Aragon and Castilla y Leon The representatives of all levels of the regional CA in Aragon indicated that enrichment material was only necessary to reduce fighting, whereas Directive 2008/120/EC requires this for all pigs and not just to reduce aggression. The practice of tail-docking pigs was accepted by the CAs of both Aragon and Castilla y Leon without question, whereas Directive 2008/120/EC requires that this procedure is not carried out routinely. Sweden: DG(SANCO) MR FINAL Tail docking is illegal in Sweden and the report found none or very minimal tail biting in the farms visited. The farm where there was tail biting was observed to have other management issues such as high levels of ammonia and problems with medical treatment of pigs. The animals condition was classed as satisfactory to good by the FVO audit but there were a number of recommendations on inspection and enforcement measures. September 2013 Abbreviations CA(s) CCA OV Competent Authority (ies) Central Competent Authority Official Veterinarian 6