EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2018) /01/2018 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Health and food audits and analysis DG(SANTE) FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN THE NETHERLANDS FROM 08 MAY 2017 TO 12 MAY 2017 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE MEMBER STATE ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT TAIL-BITING AND AVOID ROUTINE TAIL-DOCKING OF PIGS In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary The report describes the outcome of an audit in the Netherlands from 8 to 12 May This audit is part of a Commission project aimed at improving the implementation and enforcement of Directive 2008/120/EC which lays down minimum standards for the protection of pigs in the EU. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to prevent tail-biting and to avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. The report concludes that the Dutch authorities do not enforce the provisions of the pig Directive to stop routine tail-docking of pigs as they are of the view that it is a complex, multifactorial issue that needs a national strategy based on working in partnership with pig farmers (declaration of Dalfsen) to ensure implementation of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336, and thus reduce the routine tail-docking of pigs. Although to date this has not rendered any results in decreasing the number of farms that routinely tail-dock piglets, the pig sector has committed to start work on the design of farm risk assessments before the end of The Ministry of Economy intends to announce, in May 2019, a date to stop routine tail-docking in the country, which if done, will indicate a serious commitment to progress in the effective implementation of the pig Directive. European and national financial measures are not used effectively to reduce tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs and there is little incentive to farmers to reduce levels of tail biting in the current farming and quality assurance systems in the Netherlands. There is on-going work, including with the sector, to deliver a usable benchmarking inspection tool to address the insufficient instructions and guidance to inspectors in order to reach a harmonised understanding of what constitutes a breach regarding sufficient and suitable enrichment material. The data on past non-compliances obtained from farm inspections and the ones on tail-damage obtained at slaughterhouse level provide opportunities for the competent authority for improving its system (e.g. risk selection of farms, set intervention levels and measuring progress in reducing occurrence of tail-biting) and for using its resources more effectively to reach the objective of reducing systematic tail-docking of pigs. The report contains recommendations to the Dutch authorities to address the shortcomings identified. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives and scope Legal Basis Background Findings and Conclusions Implementing Measures Economic Factors Official Controls Overall Conclusions Closing Meeting Recommendations...13 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation EU IKB KDV LTO NVWA NVV Pig Directive SchwIP Explanation European Union Integral Chain Management (Integrale Ketenbeheersing) Sustainable pork value chain (Keten Duurzaam Varkensvlees) Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture (Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie Nederland) Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit) Dutch pig farmers trade Union (Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders) Council Directive 2008/120/EC Tail biting intervention programme (Schwanzbeiss-Interventions-Programm) III

5 1 INTRODUCTION This audit took place in the Netherlands from 8 to 12 May 2017 as part of the planned audit programme of DG Health and Food Safety. An opening meeting was held with the Dutch competent authorities on 8 May At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the audit were confirmed by the audit team and additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was requested. The audit team comprised two auditors from DG Health and Food Safety and a national expert from Germany and was accompanied throughout the audit by representatives from the central competent authority the Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit NVWA) within the Ministry of Economic Affairs (Ministerie van Economishe Zaken). 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to prevent tail-biting and to avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. The scope of the audit included: Primarily measures taken and documentation from the period March 2015 to March 2017 but actions taken by the competent authority and others prior to this date were also included as findings in the audit report; Activities of competent authorities; Activities of farmers' associations, meat and feed industry, academia and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) to prevent tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs; Voluntary (quality) schemes, financial incentives or any other factors that aim to encourage and support farmers in avoiding tail-docking. The main legal requirements are included in: Council Directive 2008/120/EC 1 ; Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council 2 ; Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3. 1 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (OJ L 47, , p. 5). 2 Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ L 139, , p. 206). 3 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 165, , p. 1). 1

6 In assessing compliance with Council Directive 2008/120/EC the audit team will take into account Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 and the accompanying Staff Working Document 4. In pursuit of the objectives, the following meetings were held: Meetings with competent authorities Comments Competent authority Central 2 Initial and closing meetings Other 1 NVWA inspectors Farms 2 Farm 1: 280 breeding sows, 2000 fattening pigs operating under quality scheme for antibiotic free production Farm 2: university research farm; 385 breeding sows, 2400 fattening pigs Slaughterhouse 1 Slaughterhouse visit Meetings with representatives of relevant bodies 4 Representatives of pig producers associations (LTO), private practitioners, university, Dutch animal welfare organisation. 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and, in particular Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules and Article 10 of Council Directive 2008/120/EC (hereafter the pig Directive) laying down the minimum standards for the protection of pigs. EU legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex I and refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. 4 BACKGROUND The Netherlands is the fourth largest producer of pigs in the EU with almost 12 million fatteners slaughtered each year. There are approximately 2500 breeding holdings and 2000 fattening holdings of pigs. The vast majority of pigs are reared under intensive conditions, organic farming forming 0.5% of the market 5. Almost 100% of commercial pigs are tail-docked in the country. The Netherlands is one of five Member States 6 who have an active strategy in place to work towards complying with the requirements of the pig Directive. 4 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 (OJ L 62, , p. 20) on the application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs and Commission Staff Working Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs (C(2016) 1345 final). 5 Data from EUROSTAT

7 This audit is part of a Commission project aimed at improving the implementation and enforcement of the pig Directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, particularly reducing systematic tail-docking of pigs in the EU. In 2014, the European Parliament published a study indicating extremely low implementation of the pig Directive in relation to tail-docking. In 2016, the Commission published Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 7, which provides guidance on best practices as regards measures to reduce the need for tail-docking and an accompanying Staff Working Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs 8. The Directive leaves to Member States the choice of appropriate form and methods of ensuring compliance with these general conditions. 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 IMPLEMENTING MEASURES Legal requirements Paragraphs 4 and 8 of Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 Findings Legislation 1. The Decree on animal keepers (Besluit houders van dieren) in its Articles 2.22 and the Decree on veterinarians (Besluit diergeneeskundigen) (Article 2.3) implement the requirements of point 4 and the second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the pig Directive on the provision of enrichment material and avoidance of routine tail-docking into Dutch Law. There are no additional requirements in national legislation above those of the Directive laid down for these two areas. 2. The wording of the Dutch legislation conveys that items and materials very different to the ones intended in the Directive can be used to meet the requirement of enrichment material; e.g. the Dutch legislation indicates ' to investigate and play' where the original language Directive text indicates to enable proper investigation and manipulation ', and the such as is translated in the Dutch version of the Directive as bv which means e.g. This is then transposed into national 6 Information received from response to DG SANTE questionnaire sent to EU Member States August Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 (OJ L 62, , p. 20) on the application of Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs and Commission Staff Working Document on best practices with a view to the prevention of routine tail-docking and the provision of enrichment materials to pigs (C(2016) 1345 final) 3

8 legislation as or other suitable materials which conveys any material considered suitable (not stated by whom) may be used. 3. The pig sector guidance on enrichment material (afleidingsmateriaal-varkens) contains this concept of toys being required for pigs to play. The feedback from the pig sector during the audit generally reflected the idea of pigs playing with material as opposed to pigs investigating and manipulating material. 9 The use of balls and chains as a suitable primary method for providing effective enrichment materials for pigs is not considered problematic, although section 6 (derived from an EFSA opinion 10 ) of the Staff Working Document accompanying Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 considers these as materials of marginal interest that do not fulfil the essential needs of pigs and that other materials should also be provided. 4. The national Animal Welfare Law (Wet Dieren) states that the integrity and welfare of animals should be guaranteed as far as possible. The general government animal welfare policy in the Netherlands resulting from this is to reduce all mutilations of animals (including tail-docking and castration of pigs) and to increase the use of animal based assessments in enforcement policy. Strategy for prevention of tail-docking and avoidance of routine tail-docking 5. The Ministry of Economy intends to announce, in May 2019, a date to stop routine tail-docking in the country. The pig sector wishes to postpone that announcement to 2020/ The NVWA is not yet enforcing the provisions of the pig Directive to stop the routine taildocking of pigs 11 as this would put the pig sector at a competitive disadvantage with other Member States. The Dutch CA is of the view that this is a complex, multifactorial issue. This is why it was decided to have a national strategy based on working in partnership with pig farmers (declaration of Dalfsen) to ensure implementation of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336, and thus reduce the routine tail-docking of pigs. 7. The strategy for the prevention of tail-biting and the avoidance of routine tail-docking of pigs is based upon the collaborative working methods used before to move to rearing uncastrated pigs. This successfully brought stakeholders together to increase the number of uncastrated pigs in the Netherlands over a 10 year period. 8. The Declaration of Dalfsen 12 (June 2013) is a similar non-binding road map in which steps are described to gradually leave tails longer and eventually stop docking pig tails. The Declaration 9 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that "With regard enrichment materials: the way in which the provision of enrichment material is interpreted in the Netherlands is considered inadequate. Other materials are needed to meet the animals needs in terms of investigation and enrichment". 10 Scientific Opinion concerning a multifactorial approach on the use of animal and non-animal-based measures to assess the welfare of pigs. EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3702, 101 pp. doi: /j.efsa In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "At this time the NVWA does not have sufficient tools: An assessment system should be developed which can be used by pig farmers, possibly in cooperation with the veterinarian. In view of the holding systems in the Netherlands, it is largely considered not to be feasible to refrain from tail-docking under the present circumstances." 4

9 was agreed between the pig sector, the Government, Non-Governmental Organisations and research partners. The Tails Steering Committee comprises these stakeholders. It is supported by the funding of research (50% state: 50% pig sector). There is no deadline to stop tail-docking in the Declaration. 9. Under the Dalfsen Declaration, the Netherlands started a research project to rear pigs with intact tails in The research project was conducted at VIC Sterksel (swine innovation centre), a Wageningen University and Research (WUR) experimental holding. A start was then made with a small commercial network of five farms, to establish the risks of keeping pigs with long tails. A report on the results is available at and has been disseminated to farmers. The second and more intensive phase ( ) intends to include 30 farms. At the time of the audit (May 2017), the application procedure for the second phase had not yet opened. 10. There has been no progress in keeping pigs with intact tails in the Netherlands since the Declaration of Dalfsen in 2013 as, with the exception of organic farms, and small trial groups, all commercial pigs are still routinely tail-docked in the Netherlands. 11. The sector has stated that it will start work on the design of on farm risk-assessment - which is an important element of Commission Recommendation 2016/336 - in autumn The risk assessment protocols are under development but are expected to consist of an amalgam of the SchwIP risk assessment tool, a modified Welfare Quality (c) checklist and information from the European Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 and the accompanying Staff Working Document. Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture (Land- en Tuinbouw Afbeelding Organisatie) (LTO) expects that all farmers will carry out on farm assessments in conjunction with their veterinarian and feed advisers. 12. The project proposal includes supplementary training for pig farmers, veterinarians and advisors on how to implement risk assessment protocols but no details were available of how this will be done. The university research centre proposes to include traffic light grading for risk factors linked to practical solutions to address the risk and clear practical explanations of why the suggested action should be taken. 13. A communication strategy to all stakeholders on the risk assessment roll-out is being developed between the Ministry of Economy and the pig sector and an expert group dealing with nutrition, health, housing, environment and behaviour will be available to assist farmers who are having problems. A separate communication strategy for citizens will also be put in place. 14. The competent authority is awaiting the outcome of this pig sector network proposal for implementing on-farm risk assessments and resulting outcomes before considering if these meet 12 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "the Declaration of Dalfsen states: The parties to the Declaration are concentrating on steps to gradually dock tails less radically within the most common current pig holding systems, as well as providing support for responsible initiatives by other parties. The Declaration of Dalfsen describes the steps to be taken to gradually leave tails longer and ultimately see whether it would be responsible to stop tail-docking at existing farms; the welfare of both animals and farmers/farm staff must continue to be ensured." 5

10 the requirements of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the pig Directive to ensure environmental and management changes have been taken on board before resorting to routine tail-docking. International Cooperation 15. There is cooperation between the Netherlands, Denmark and the two main pig producing Länder in Germany aimed to harmonise the interpretation and implementation of legislation and guidance dealing with this issue and to share research findings. They had regular meetings and exchanged information. To date they have not made any concrete agreements or fixed deadlines on implementing measures. 16. The major trade issue between these countries is the export of piglets with intact tails to other countries whose farms are not ready to further rear them with tails. This is a serious impediment to these countries implementing the requirements on the prevention of routine tail-docking. Piglets exported from the Netherlands (8kg and over) are therefore routinely tail-docked in the absence of any signs of problematic tail-biting in the farms concerned to meet producer demands on the fattening farms in the receiving countries: this is not in compliance with point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the pig Directive. Pig sector associations 17. The pig sector organisations (LTO and NVV) chair the Tails steering committee. Farmers were reluctant to participate in the research phase of the Tails network as they faced criticism from their peers. They only joined on conditions of anonymity. They expect that the addition of a small financial incentive and the general acceptance that changes in farm standards are necessary should encourage higher participation. 18. Industry perceive tail-biting as a serious welfare issue only for pigs with intact tails. They argued that any move to rearing pigs with intact tails would lead to more welfare problems. Tail-biting in docked pigs was not considered to be a welfare problem. 19. The pig sector is working with the Ministry of Economy in the Tails project to develop improved guidance for the provision of enrichment material by farmers. There is no pig sector guidance available on avoiding routine tail-docking of pigs or preventing tail-biting. 20. Two pig sector websites provide generic information on the requirements for and provision of enrichment material. However, none of these go beyond describing the mandatory use of enrichment material, that a chain is not enough and that material provided must not be dangerous for the health and welfare of the pigs. 21. In response to the recommendation in Commission audit report DG(SANTE) MR to ensure that staff attending to animals have received instructions and guidance on the pig Directive, the pig sector is developing a lifelong-learning policy on regular farmer training 13 to include research and educational establishments in the provision of training and assessments of 13 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "Regular training: courses and training for staff and operators are for example regulated via the sector staff training organisation Stichting Kwalitatief Personeel Varkenshouderij (KPV)." 6

11 competence. However, this policy has not yet been implemented (planned for ) and there is no integration with the Dalfsen Tails project. Veterinary Association 22. The Dutch Veterinary Association sits on the on the monitoring committee of the Tails Steering Committee. In accordance with the IKB (Integrale Ketenbeheersing) quality assurance scheme and national legislation, Dutch farmers must set up an annual farm health plan with their veterinarian. Private veterinary practitioners are closely involved in the drawing up of these farm health plans on pig farms. The audit team was informed that these health plans frequently contain generic statements from private veterinarians on the necessity for tail-docking. 23. Veterinary statements on the need for tail-docking were, by admission of the Dutch Veterinary Association, generic statements which were not based upon any demonstrable evidence of assessment of measures which should be taken by farmers to improve inadequate environmental conditions or management systems that are required by point 8 of Chapter I, of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC before resorting to tail-docking. Although these are not certificates required by veterinary legislation, the statements are not consistent with the spirit and principles of the certification directive (Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive 1996/93/EC14)) and the general principles of certification of the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE). Feedback from NVWA inspectors met indicated that they have difficulty in arguing against a veterinary opinion and verifying the requirements to avoid routine tail-docking when confronted with statements of its need issued by private veterinarians as part of the on farm health plan. Reliance on these statements without a proper assessment of the incidence of tail-biting and improvement measures taken on farms means that the competent authority is not ensuring the effectiveness of official controls as required in Art 4.2 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Agricultural advisory services 24. There are no state funded agri-advisory services in the Netherlands. On-farm advice to pig farmers comes almost exclusively from feed and genetics companies and private veterinarians. Conclusions on Implementing Measures 25. The wording used in the translation and transposition of the requirements for enrichment material in the Decree on animal keepers (Besluit houders van dieren) contributes to the pig sector view of the suitability of toys as primary enrichment material. 26. Netherlands is one of the few EU countries with a strategy to gradually keep pigs with longer tails and reach compliance with the pig Directive. However, this has not yet been effective, i.e; it has not achieved results in decreasing the number of farms that perform routine tail-docking. 27. The Dutch authorities do not enforce the provisions of the pig Directive to stop routine taildocking of pigs as they are of the view that it is a complex, multifactorial issue that needs a 14 Council Directive 96/93 of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animals products (OJL 13, , p. 28) 7

12 national strategy based on working in partnership with pig farmers (declaration of Dalfsen) to ensure implementation of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336, and thus reduce the routine tail-docking of pigs. 28. The commitment to introduce a programme of farm risk assessments and an advisory support network is an important development which, if implemented effectively, could form the basis for making changes to environmental conditions and management systems to avoid routine taildocking of pigs. The fact that authorities and the pig sector will announce, in 2019 and 2021 respectively, deadlines for an end to routine tail-docking shows serious commitment towards proper implementation of the Directive. 29. To date, all actions and strategies did not have significant impact in reducing routine tail-docking of piglets, which is maintained on the generalised belief that the Dutch pig sector will lose competitiveness, and is not helped by difficulties encountered on the part of officials to challenge generic statements from private veterinarians on the necessity for tail-docking. 30. The competent authority has not effectively addressed the recommendation in the previous audit report DG(SANTE)/ MR on improving the training of farmers and has not yet integrated its proposals for this with the actions proposed for the introduction of farm risk assessments and the deadline for the end of routine tail-docking. 5.2 ECONOMIC FACTORS Legal requirements Article 33 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/ Findings European and National Funding Measures in the Pig Sector 31. The Netherlands does make use of an EU Rural Development funding measure (measure 14) for the provision of solid flooring and the cooling of pig accommodation in new or refurbished buildings. There are no requirements for keeping pigs with intact tails to receive funding. 32. The Dutch Standard for Sustainable Livestock Production provides farmers with tax rebates if they fulfil certain criteria from a list relating to housing, animal welfare, environment, pen climate and animal health. The welfare criteria include the provision of more space and additional enrichment material but have no requirements for keeping pigs with intact tails. 24% of all new or refurbished pig accommodation has been built to these improved standards. 33. As one of the outcomes of the first phase of the Tails project was that farmers had no financial incentive for taking part, modest funding (approximately ) will be introduced as part of the second phase of the Tails network for the initial participants. The pig sector (23%) and the 15 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (OJL 347, , p.487) on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. 8

13 Dutch State (73%) have borne the cost of funding the Tails network estimated at approximately 800,000 to date. Market-led initiatives 34. Wageningen University estimated economic damage caused by tail-biting (in docked tails) in the country at more than 8 million euro per year in For a sow farm with 500 sows, annual costs were estimated at 2,142 euro, for a fattening farm with 4,000 fatteners cost was estimated at 2,383 euro (edepot.wur.nl/188443). 35. All pigs slaughtered must comply with the IKB quality assurance standard. This has no specific requirements relating to tail-biting or avoidance of routine tail-docking. Regarding enrichment material it does not allow the use of metal chains as the sole enrichment material or harmful material but does not provide clear criteria on quantity, quality or frequency of provision. 36. The Dutch society for the protection of animals (Dierenbescherming) is a non-governmental organisation operating the quality assurance scheme Beter Leven. At present all pigs slaughtered and sold as fresh meat in the Netherlands are reared under the one star Beter Leven standard. Beter Leven only includes intact tails as a criterion in the two and three star level. At present there are no commercial non-organic farms with the two or three star status. 37. The KDV quality assurance organisation (Sustainable pork value chain (Keten Duurzaam Varkensvlees)) has demonstrated productivity gains from reviewing the management of some of the individual risk parameters listed in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 such as: thermal comfort and air quality, health status, diet (including drinking water) and provision of enrichment material. 38. Other quality assurance schemes operated by the four main meat producing companies give some basic feedback to farmers on losses incurred from tail damage. Two give more detailed information when an intervention level is exceeded but no remedial actions were defined. Conclusions on Economic Factors 39. European and national financial measures are not used effectively to reduce tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs. Improvements to housing enabling pigs to be raised with intact tails are not part of the eligibility criteria for acceptance into the schemes or for the provision of funding. 40. There is little incentive to farmers to reduce levels of tail biting in the current farming and quality assurance systems in the Netherlands despite the evidence of production losses from tailbiting and production gains demonstrated through changes in environment and pig management, 5.3 OFFICIAL CONTROLS Legal requirements Directive 2008/120/EC 9

14 Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 in connection with Section I, Chapter II, point B(1) and point C. of its Annex I and the relevant provisions of Section II, Chapter I of that Annex. Article 3 and Article 43 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 Findings Planning and procedures for farm inspections 41. There are robust procedures for the planning of inspections and the drawing up and revision of checklists. The audit team saw examples that improvements to checklists after suggestions from inspectors were quickly approved and implemented (within 6 months). 42. There is guidance for carrying out inspections but the level of detail does not enable inspectors to consistently and effectively enforce the provisions of point 4 and the second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of the pig Directive concerning whether changes to management or environmental systems had been made on farms prior to routine tail-docking. The competent authority does not yet monitor levels of tail-biting in farms. 43. The competent authority has commissioned a pilot project on "open norms" with Wageningen University. This aims to deliver a usable inspection tool for inspectors to improve enforcement on the tail-docking provisions by defining inspection guidance on what constitutes satisfactory levels for parameters listed in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336; e.g. for climate: five indicators (two resource based and three animal based, including scores on tails and ears) and for adequacy of drinking water (defines number of drinkers per pens/numbers of pigs and flow rates). 44. The instruction on the checklist for inspections as well as a brochure issued by the competent authority in 2007 (Goede afleiding voor uw varkens) do not define what is a sufficient quantity of enrichment material and what kind of materials would meet the requirements of the pig Directive. This guidance to inspectors merely indicates that a metal chain is insufficient. Inspectors expressed the wish to have much clearer guidance to enable them to effectively and consistently enforce the requirements of the Directive. 45. The lead inspector for pigs had drafted detailed guidance on enrichment material which was being used by his inspectors to provide advice to farmers on what constituted suitable enrichment material. However, this guidance was not included in official instructions for farm inspectors and not used for enforcement. 16 The competent authority acknowledged that the guidance to inspectors needs to be improved to permit inspectors to effectively enforce the legislative requirements. Official controls on pig farms 46. Officials inspected 10% of farms in both 2015 and Despite a lack of detailed guidance, high levels of non-compliances were detected for insufficient or inadequate enrichment 16 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: "this is internal guidance for inspectors drawn up on the initiative of the lead inspector himself and does not have official status. The official instructions refer to the brochure from 2007." 10

15 materials (71 non-compliances out of 501 inspections in 2015 and 44 out of 486 in 2016). This was not taken on board in the setting of priorities for inspection for the following years which is not in compliance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and the competent authority's own procedures. 47. The intervention policy lays down enforcement principles but it leaves a large degree of discretion to officials to decide which type of measures to take when non-compliances are detected. The review of 15 files from 2016 showed that enforcement actions such as fines or stricter measures were not taken when lack of enrichment materials was the sole deficiency. In 12 out of 15 cases, deficiencies were followed up by a second inspection. All farms visited were found to be compliant on follow-up. Internal audit 48. An internal audit report of 2016 on NVWA inspections on pig farms concluded that enforcement of legislative requirements was generally satisfactory. However, it was critical of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention policy as it was applied on pig farms and it recommended that inspections should focus on compliance. It also indicated that motives for farmer noncompliance, the consistency of use of the intervention policy by inspectors, and the effect of the intervention policy on pig farmers' compliance with the legislative requirements should be investigated further. Official controls in slaughterhouses 49. Data is available in slaughterhouses on the incidence of tail-damage. Both the authority and the pig sector record levels of tail-damaged pigs as part of the ante-mortem inspection of animals. The competent authority's food safety database (fixed RSG) records only the category of animals: either as fit for regular slaughter (category 1), or detained for processing at the end of normal production (categories 2 and 3). Pigs with severe tail-damage are routinely detained. Pigs with evidence of fresh superficial bites received during transport are passed for normal slaughter. Farmers will receive information from slaughterhouses on carcase condemnations resulting from tail lesions. 50. The competent authority does not monitor levels of tail-damage in slaughterhouses and does not set intervention levels for tail-lesions, which is not in line with the principles of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/ They do not use any scoring system or provide any guidance to inspectors to assess the severity of tail-lesions in slaughterhouses. There are no measures taken to standardise scoring of tail-lesions between different slaughterhouses. 17 Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 requires official veterinarians to carry out inspection at slaughterhouses, to verify compliance with relevant EU and national rules on animal welfare, and take appropriate measures as regards the communication of these inspection results. In this case it is relevant to the prevention of tail biting and avoidance of routine tail-docking; 11

16 51. In 2016, more than 14 million pigs were subject to ante-mortem inspection. There were no official follow-up investigations of tail-damage reported from slaughterhouses in 2015 and The audit team saw a case in 2017 with three consignments of pigs from the same premises exhibiting raised levels of tail-damage and in poor condition where the official veterinarian highlighted it to the enforcement authorities by . There was no official report, follow-up visit or action taken by the enforcement authorities in this case as the farm had a good record and the incident related to feed constituent problems. 52. The NVWA received two reports from Germany concerning pigs delivered at a German slaughterhouse in 2016 with tails docked too short. Both reports were followed up by an inspection. The operators were made aware of the excessive docking of the tails and of its undesirability. Both farms received a written warning. Conclusions on Official Controls 53. The current instructions and guidance do not provide inspectors with a clear view of what is sufficient and suitable enrichment material nor for what constitutes satisfactory levels for the other parameters listed in Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336, which hampers the effective enforcement of provisions with regard to the avoidance of routine tail-docking of pigs. 54. The competent authority takes enforcement action to address the implementation of its existing requirements relating to enrichment material. The fact that high levels of non-compliance are not taken on board in subsequent planning or in the overall strategy to reduce tail-biting reduces the likelihood of decreasing routine tail-docking of pigs with effective and efficient use of resources. 55. Data on tail-damage obtained at slaughterhouse level may not give a fully accurate level for onfarm prevalence, but if collected, it would still be a valuable tool to measure progress with efforts to reduce the occurrence of tail-biting on farm and to set intervention levels in slaughterhouses. 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The report concludes that the Dutch authorities do not enforce the provisions of the pig Directive to stop routine tail-docking of pigs as they are of the view that it is a complex, multifactorial issue that needs a national strategy based on working in partnership with farmers to gradually attain the goal of compliance. Although to date this has not rendered any results in decreasing the number of farms that tail-dock piglets routinely, the pig sector has committed to start work on the design of farm risk assessments before the end of 2017 and to set a deadline for the end to routine tail-docking which if done, will indicate a serious commitment to progress in the effective implementation of the pig Directive. European and national financial measures are not used effectively to reduce tail-biting and avoid routine tail-docking of pigs and there is little incentive to farmers to reduce levels of tail-biting in the current farming and quality assurance systems in the Netherlands. 12

17 There is on-going work, including with the sector, to deliver a usable benchmarking inspection tool to address the insufficient instructions and guidance to inspectors in order to reach a harmonised understanding of what constitutes a breach regarding sufficient and suitable enrichment material. The data on past non-compliances obtained from farm inspections and the ones on tail-damage obtained at slaughterhouse level provide opportunities for the competent authority for improving its system (e.g. risk selection of farms, set intervention levels and measuring progress in reducing occurrence of tail-biting) and for using its resources more effectively to reach the objective of reducing systematic tail-docking of pigs. 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 12 May 2017 with representatives of the competent authorities, at which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team. The Competent authorities agreed that there is a need to update the information provided to inspectors and farmers to assess compliance with the pig Directive. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The competent authorities are invited to provide, within 25 working days of receipt of the report, an action plan containing details of the actions taken and planned, including deadlines for their completion, aimed at addressing the recommendations set out below: No. Recommendation 1. The competent authority should review the transposition of the requirements for enrichment material in the Law on Decision holders of animals (Besluit houders van dieren) to ensure they reflect clearly the intent of the original language text of Council Directive 2008/120/EC. Conclusion 25; Findings 2, The competent authority should provide inspectors with suitable instructions and guidance to enable them to effectively enforce the provision on the prevention of tail-biting and avoidance of routine tail-docking, as laid down in the second paragraph of point 8 of Chapter I of Annex I of Council Directive 2008/120/EC, including how they should assess evidence of tail and ear lesions on farm and what constitutes sufficient measures by farmers to change inadequate environmental conditions or management systems before resorting to tail-docking of pigs, including the situation where tail-docked pigs are purchased from rearing farms which have shown no evidence of tail-biting. Conclusions 27, 28. Findings 5 to 13. Conclusion 53. Findings 42, 43, The competent authority should provide instructions and guidance for inspectors to enable them to assess if the requirements on the provision of enrichment material as laid down in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC regarding the suitability ( proper manipulation and investigation activities ) and sufficiency ( permanent access to a sufficient quantity of 13

18 No. Recommendation material ) of enrichment materials have been fulfilled on farms. Assessment methods for checking access to enrichment materials should include checks based on the guidance given in point 7 of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 and/or other suitable best practice. Conclusion 53. Findings 44, 45, The competent authority should ensure that high levels of non-compliances, in this case regarding enrichment materials, are taken into account in the setting of future inspection priorities as required by Articles 3 and 43(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and in their strategy to avoid the routine tail-docking of pigs. Conclusion 54. Finding The competent authority should ensure that the levels of tail-damage in slaughterhouses is monitored and that high levels of non-compliances trigger actions on the respective farms, as required in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. Conclusion 55. Findings 49, 50 and As required in Article 4.2 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the competent authority should assess that there is recorded evidence of the incidence of tailbiting on farm and the effectiveness of improvement measures taken to combat this and their impact, as required in point 8 of Chapter I, of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC, including when piglets are going to be sent to rearing farms for further fattening, and not rely on veterinary statements instead of official controls to ensure the requirements of the Directive are implemented effectively. Conclusion 29. Findings 22 and The competent authority could consider integrating the existing pig sector training proposals with the new proposal for farmer training for the risk assessment exercise in 2017 and include veterinarians in the specific training focussing on tail biting as an indicator of welfare. Conclusion 30. Findings 11, 12 and The competent authority could consider liaising with other Government Agencies responsible for funding new buildings and renovating existing ones to ensure that such facilities are suitable to enable the rearing of pigs with intact tails e.g. slurry systems that can handle optimal enrichment materials, different temperature zones, suitable flooring, feeding, space allowances etc. Conclusion 39. Findings and 31, 32 and 33. The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at: 14

19 15

20 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Reg. 882/2004 OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Reg. 854/2004 OJ L 139, , p. 206, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 226, , p. 83 Dir. 2008/120/EC OJ L 47, , p Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs