<b>Bijsluiter</b>. De hyperlink naar het originele document werkt niet meer. Daarom laat Woogle de tekst zien die in dat document stond. Deze tekst kan vreemde foutieve woorden of zinnen bevatten en de opmaak kan verdwenen of veranderd zijn. Dit komt door het zwartlakken van vertrouwelijke informatie of doordat de tekst niet digitaal beschikbaar was en dus ingescand en vervolgens via OCR weer ingelezen is. Voor het originele document, neem contact op met de Woo-contactpersoon van het bestuursorgaan.<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 1 ======================================================================

<pre>                          MAY 2005
               ADVICE RDA 2005/03
MAINTAINING OR IMPROVING FARM ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE LIGHT
  OF INCREASING TRADE LIBERALISATION AND GLOBALISATION: A
                                    CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?
                                   ADVICE FOR THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE ,
                                      NATURE AND FOOD QUAL ITY CONCERNING
                                   STRAT EGIC OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH THE
                                          APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
                                    LIBERALISATION , GLOBALISATION AND FARM
                                                            ANIMAL WELFARE
                                                                          1
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 1 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 2 ======================================================================

<pre>   MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
  •   prof. C.J.G. Wensing, chairman Council for Animal Affairs
  •   A. Achterkamp
  •   I. Arendzen                    address:
  •   A.M. Burger                    Laan van Nieuw Oost Indië 131-133
  •   E.C. Greve                     2593 BM The Hague
  •   M.J.B. Jansen                  The Netherlands
  •   S.B.M. Jongerius
                                     mailing address:
  •   J.Th. de Jongh
                                     P.O. Box 90428
  •   P.J.J.M. Loonen
                                     2509 LK The Hague
  •   B.J. Odink
                                     The Netherlands
  •   dr. H. Paul
  •   G. de Peuter
                                     telephone +31 70 3785266
  •   prof. A. Pijpers
                                     facsimile + 31 70 3786336
  •   T. de Ruijter
                                     email info@rda.nl
  •   S.J. Schenk
  •   prof. F.J. van Sluijs
                                     www.raadvoordierenaangelegenheden.nl
  •   H.W.A. Swinkels
  •   P.A. Thijsse
  •   prof. J.H.M. Verheijden
  •   P. van der Wal
  Secretary: dr. I.D. de Wolf
2
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 2 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 3 ======================================================================

<pre>3</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 3 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 4 ======================================================================

<pre>       TABLE OF CONTENTS
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Background report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Animal welfare in an international context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. How to maintain or improve farm animal welfare in the light of increasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
   trade liberalisation and globalisation?
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Overview of agricultural trade by the Netherlands and EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3. Overview of publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 4 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 5 ======================================================================

<pre>5</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 5 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 6 ======================================================================

<pre>         RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report, written at the request of the Director of Animal welfare has been defined in various ways.
Trade and Industry of the Dutch Ministry of Agri-         Most definitions agree that good welfare occurs
culture, Nature and Food Quality, insight is given in     when animals are in harmony with themselves and
the relationship between trade liberalisation and         their   environment.    However,     some   definitions
globalisation on the one hand and animal welfare on       emphasise that there always will be challenges to
the other. Several strategic options are presented        animals in any environment and that good welfare
which may all be helpful in dealing with the apparent     occurs when animals are able to cope with these
contradiction between liberalisation/globalisation and    challenges. Dispute still exists as to whether welfare
animal welfare. The direct and indirect costs of these    should be defined ultimately in terms of feelings only
options are not discussed here. Furthermore, this         - i.e. emotional states such as hunger, pain, fear,
report assigns responsibilities to all stakeholders       frustration, and pleasure that animals experience - or
involved. This report may help determine the strate-      (more directly measurable) in terms of biological
gy to be followed by the Dutch government in the          functioning such as survival, normal behaviour,
WTO negotiations on agriculture.                          physiology, and (re-) productive success. It is gene-
                                                          rally agreed that feelings are an important part of the
Trade liberalisation can be defined as “opening local     concept of welfare.
markets to foreign goods by removing barriers to
exports and imports”. Globalisation is a comprehen-       An animal's welfare is sensitive to many different
sive term for “the emergence of a global society in       factors acting on various time scales for which there
which economic, political, environmental, and cultu-      is   no   simple,  objectively   measurable   common
ral events in one part of the world quickly come to       currency.    Moreover,   scientific  knowledge   about
have significance for people in other parts of the        animals' subjective states - key elements in animal
world”. Although the terms mean different things, in      welfare - is imperfect. However, a broad consensus
spoken language the two terms are often inter-            basis exists among welfare scientists concerning the
changed: (trade) liberalisation is used where globali-    assessment of (farm) animal welfare.
sation is meant and v.v.
                                                          The interest in animal welfare differs strongly
                                                          between countries and regions. E.g. whereas animal
6
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 6 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 7 ======================================================================

<pre>welfare is seen as a major non-trade concern by              not explored f urther in this report;
many western European countries, such as the              2. Business as usual: no easing or more stringent
Scandinavian countries and the UK, the interest in           legislation on animal welfare in the Netherlands
animal welf are is limited in countries such as the US.      and/or the EU, no initiatives within the chain (i.e.
                                                             livestock industry, processing industry, super-
Trade liberalisation and globalisation may have a            markets and consumers) to improve farm animal
limited, but positive effect on animal welfare in some       welfare. This so-called “zero option” seems to be
cases, e.g. export of live cattle to the Middle East         the most realistic option, given the political
may decrease due to the termination of export                climate in the Netherlands and the different
restitution and the process of trade liberalisation and      points of view within the EU concerning the inte-
globalisation may open the possibility for a discus -        rest of animal welfare. Several initiatives could
sion on internationally accepted standards on farm           be taken here: in the WTO and EU framework
animal welfare. However, many people feel that the           and in the field of bilateral agreements, a volun-
positive consequences of trade liberalisation and            tary code of practice, informing and educating
globalisation are overshadowed by the expected               consumers       and   investments     in  innovative
negative consequences of trade liberalisation and            research;
globalisation for animal welfare. The most important      3. Improving animal welfare by more stringent legis -
negative consequence seems to be change in                   lation in the Netherlands and/or the EU or on the
competitiveness. A competitive disadvantage may              initiative of the chain. The additional efforts that
have     considerable   economic     consequences     for    are suggested in this option, the so-called “plus
farmers, but also for the processing industry, regard-       option”, are warmly welcomed by the Council,
less which market they supply.                               but will probably be on a voluntary basis and on
                                                             the initiative of non-governmental stakeholders
In dealing with increasing trade liberalisation and          (and under pressure of the public opinion and
globalisation, several strategies can be followed with       NGOs and supported by the Dutch government),
regard to animal welfare:                                    given the current political climate in the Nether-
1. Easing legislation in the area of animal welfare in       lands. The Council would like to point out that
     the EU; although from an economic point of view         producing in accordance with more stringent
     this might be an attractive strategy, from an ani-      animal welfare standards will not necessarily
     mal welfare, societal and political point of view       increase      production    or   processing   costs,
     this option does not seem to be realistic and is        especially if appropriate cost-containing techno-
                                                                                                                7
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 7 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 8 ======================================================================

<pre>     logies can be found. Furthermore, improved             The Council remarks that it is of uttermost impor-
     animal    welfare   is  often    synonymous       with tance that the EU operates as one when putting
     increased productivity, enhanced product quality       animal welfare on the WTO agenda. Efforts may fail
     and greater unit profitability. Investment in inno-    if the different EU countries all speak for themselves
     vative research, at the initiative of the agricultural and not with one voice. Another option for getting
     sector and probably supported by the Dutch             animal welfare on the agenda is that the Netherlands
     government and/or EU, will be necessary.               forms a coalition with like- minded EU partners and
                                                            third countries. In order to ease the path for WTO
Within the zero option, a major step could be made if       standards on animal welfare, the EU or the coalition
animal welfare were put on the WTO agenda. Ideally,         could prepare welfare standards in advance, thereby
the WTO would encourage and support the develop-            facilitating the discussion.
ment of internationally acknowledged farm animal
welfare standards. The application of other WTO             The Council for Animal Affairs is of the opinion that
related instruments, i.e. the admission of animal           all parties involved (i.e. Dutch government and/or
welfare ni the green box, restricted demolition of          EU, all organisations within the chain, NGOs and
tariffs, and/or a change of WTO regulations and their       Dutch and/or European society) have their own
interpretation, however, should also be a point of          responsibility in dealing with animal welfare and
focus. The Dutch Product Boards for Livestock, Meat         could all contribute in their own way to this process
and     Eggs   are   not   very   optimistic   about    the by making use of the means at their disposal.
attainability of putting animal welfare on the WTO
agenda, although the reluctance of many major non-          The Council recommends following the next tracks
EU countries in putting non-trade concerns on the           for dealing with farm animal welfare in the light of
WTO agenda seems to have a mainly negotiation-              increasing trade liberalisation and globalisation:
technical    character.    Nevertheless,     even    when
succeeding in putting animal welfare on the WTO             Short-term
agenda, this strategy will only produce an effect in        Track 1: providing information to increase consumer
the long run, thus other strategies for dealing with                    awareness by all stakeholders involved (i.e.
the tense relationship between liberalisation/globa-                    Dutch government, the chain, NGOs etc.)
lisation and animal welfare standards in the EU, and                    (preferably in combination with track 2).
more specifically the Netherlands, should be fol-
lowed as well in the meanwhile.
8
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 8 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 9 ======================================================================

<pre>Track 2: starting     consultation   about    voluntary           countries;   Dutch   government     initiatives
         labelling of products of which the relation              under pressure from public opinion, NGOs
         with animal welfare is obvious; branding                 and the chain.
         might be an alternative; chain initiatives, for
         instance     under    pressure  from    public  Track 6: enforcing changes in the structure of Com-
         opinion, NGOs and the Dutch government                   mon Agricultural Policy payments, thereby
         (preferably in combination with track 1).                making subsidies conditional on compli-
                                                                  ance with EU sustainability, including ani-
Track 3: investigating the feasibility and if possible            mal welfare; Dutch government initiatives
         realising an obligatory indication of the                under pressure from public opinion, NGOs
         country or region of origin on the packaging             and the chain.
         of meat within the Netherlands or the EU;
         initiative for a study on feasibility has al-   Track 7: placing animal welfare on the WTO agenda
         ready been announced by the EU (prefe-                   and starting with the development of stan-
         rably in combination with track 1).                      dards on farm animal welfare in the WTO
                                                                  or IOE (in which case the IOE standards
Track 4: starting consultation about a voluntary code             should be obligatory); Dutch government
         of practice as a consequence of which                    initiatives under pressure from public opi-
         supermarkets will only sell products pro-                nion, NGOs and the chain.
         duced in accordance with specific animal
         welfare standards (link to Eurep- GAP?) and     Track 8: investment in innovative research to main-
         the processing industry will only use pro-               tain    animal  welfare  while    decreasing
         ducts produced in accordance with specific               production costs; sector initiatives, maybe
         animal welfare standards; initiative by the              supported by the Dutch government and/or
         supermarkets and/or processing industry,                 the EU.
         probably     under    pressure  from    public
         opinion, NGOs and the Dutch government.         Medium-term
                                                         Track 1: realising branding or voluntary labelling of
Track 5: bilateral   negotiations   on  production    in          products of which the relation with animal
         accordance with EU animal welfare stan-                  welfare is obvious (continuation of track 2,
         dards with the most important exporting                  short-term)
                                                                                                                9
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 9 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 10 ======================================================================

<pre>Track 2: realising a voluntary code of practice as a    Long-term
         consequence of which supermarkets will         Track 1: anchoring of farm animal welfare within the
         sell only products that are produced in                 WTO (continuation track 4, medium-term).
         accordance with specific animal welfare
         standards (link to Eurep- GAP?) and the        Track 2: working out and realising the plus option,
         processing industry will only use products              which is a responsibility of all stakeholders.
         that are produced in line with specific ani-
         mal welfare standards (continuation of track
         4, short-term).
Track 3: realising a change in the structure of Com-
         mon Agricultural Policy payments (continu-
         ation of track 6, short-term).
Track 4: development of welfare standards (by the
         WTO or IOE) and a discussion within the
         WTO on WTO-regulations and their inter-
         pretation and financial instruments (conti-
         nuation of track 7, short-term; scientists can
         play a major role in developing standards
         on animal welfare in this phase).
Track 5: investment in innovative research to main-
         tain animal welfare while decreasing pro-
         duction costs (continuation of track 8, short-
         term).
If not successfully completed in the short-term,
tracks 1, 3 and 5 should be continued in the
medium-term as well.
10
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 10 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 11 ======================================================================

<pre>11</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 11 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 12 ======================================================================

<pre>         BACKGROUND REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION                                          company becomes international or starts operating
                                                         on an international level”. Globalisation is a compre-
The three main concepts in this paper on the             hensive term for “the emergence of a global society
relationship between trade libera lisation and globali-  in which economic, political, environmental, and cul-
sation on the one hand and animal welfare on the         tural events in one part of the world quickly come to
other are trade liberalisation, globalisation and        have significance for people in other parts of the
animal welfare.                                          world”. It also involves the growth of multinational
                                                         and transnational corporations (1).
     1.1. Trade liberalisation
                                                              1.3. Animal welfare
Liberalisation means “to reform and become less
strict, or to reform something and make it less strict”.      1.3.1. Definition of animal welfare
Trade liberalisation then means “opening local mar-      Animal welfare has been defined in various ways.
kets to foreign goods by removing barriers to exports    Most definitions agree that good welfare occurs
and imports” (1).                                        when animals are in harmony with themselves and
                                                         their   environment.   However,     some     definitions
In the discussion on animal welfare, trade liberali-     emphasise that there always will be challenges to
sation cannot be seen apart from globalisation. Al-      animals in any environment and that good welfare
though the terms mean different things, in spoken        occurs when animals are able to cope with these
language the two terms are often interchanged:           challenges. Whether welfare should be defined
(trade) liberalisation is used where globalisation is    ultimately in terms of feelings only - i.e. emotional
meant and v.v.                                           states such as hunger, pain, fear, frustration, and
                                                         pleasure that animals experience - or (more directly
     1.2. Globalisation                                  measurable) in terms of biological functioning such
                                                         as survival, normal behaviour, physiology, and (re-)
Globalisation can be described as “1) the process by     productive success, is still a moot point. It is
which social institutions become adopted on a global     generally agreed that feelings are an important part
scale, and 2) the process by which a business or         of the concept of welfare (2).
12
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 12 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 13 ======================================================================

<pre>Prof. B. Spruijt, for instance, has given a definition, •   Freedom from pain, injury or disease by preven-
which emphasises the challenges to animals and              tion or rapid diagnosis and treatment;
their ability to cope with these challenges. He         •   Freedom to express normal behaviour by provi-
defines animal welfare as “the perspective of the           ding sufficient space, proper facilities and com-
animal to be able to cope with a specific situation,        pany of the animal's own kind;
the balance between positive and negative factors”.     •   Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring con-
According to him, this does not necessarily mean the        ditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering.
animal has to be free of any kind of stress, however    Critics remark that the absence of negative states as
it does mean that the animal has to have the pros-      formulated by the Brambell commission is un-
pect of improveme nt (3).                               thinkable in nature, and therefore put this definition
According to Giffroy and Beaufays (4), animal wel-      of animal welfare up for debate.
fare is “a balance at a specific moment of the
attempts of the organism to adapt itself to its sur-        1.3.2. Assessment of animal welfare
roundings on the physiological, medical field and in    An animal's welfare is dependent on many different
the area of behaviour; these attempts may be effi-      factors acting on various time scales for which there
cient or inefficient; they may be heavy or not. Animal  is no simple, objectively measurable common cur-
welfare refers to several concepts such as stress,      rency. Moreover, scientific knowledge about animals'
sorrow or harm”. This definition also emphasises the    subjective states - key elements in animal welfare -
challenges to animals and their ability to cope with    is imperfect. However, a broad consensus exists
these challenges. In addition to the first definition,  among welfare scientists concerning the assessment
the definition of Giffroy and Beaufays includes fee-    of (farm) animal welfare. Increased mortality or
lings, such as sorrow or harm, as well.                 sudden drops in production, for instance, are
Lastly, the Brambell commission (5) defined (farm)      generally believed to indicate reduced welfare, even
animal welfare by means of five freedoms that           if no further evidence is available about how the
express mainly the absence of negative states, i.e.:    animals feel prior to death or during a period of
•   Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access      reduced growth. Most scientists accept that there are
    to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health   no major welfare problems when there is low
    and vigour;                                         mortality, low morbidity, little or no risk of injury, good
•   Freedom      from    discomfort by  providing    an body condition (sustaining adequate production and
    appropriate environment including shelter and a     reproduction), the ability to perform species-specific
    comfortable resting area;                           activities (including social interactions, exploration
                                                                                                                 13
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 13 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 14 ======================================================================

<pre>and play), and the absence of abnormal behaviour       respect and protect the dignity of "life". Conse-
and physiological signs of stress, including suppres - quently, Article 20a of the German constitution will
sion of immune responses. A complete assessment        read: "The state takes responsibility for protecting
of (farm) animal welfare must take account of short-   the natural foundations of life and animals in the
term information obtained from individual animals,     interest of future generations” (6, 7). In other wealthy
but it should also integrate information over longer   and urbanised countries, such as the Netherlands,
periods of time (months or years) and information      animals    don’t   (yet) have    constitutional   rights,
about groups of animals (unit, herd, or system level)  although the issue is being discussed in some of
to cover intensity, duration and incidence of any      these countries. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam (in
welfare-related condition. Given this complexity,      force since May 1st, 1999), countries of the European
welfare cannot be assessed with absolute certainty     Union are obliged to take full account of animal
(2).                                                   welfare when formulating and implementing Com-
                                                       munity legislation (8). The search for cheaper food
     1.3.3. Developments in animal welfare             and greater economic efficiency is no longer accep-
Since the 1960s, once anthropocentrism had been        ted as the sole standard against which policy choices
rejected, movements have developed to the advan-       should be measured (9).
tage of animals. Initially, these movements were
limited to the Scandinavian and Anglo- Saxon coun-     Elsewhere in the world, where the average standard
tries, but they rapidly spread to all wealthy and      of living is (much) lower and/or the number of far-
urbanised countries. Under the pressure of public      mers is higher, the interest for animal welfare re-
opinion, animal welfare laws were drawn up, which      mains limited (4).
had to balance social, economic, cultural and politi-
cal requirements (4). The extent to which govern-           1.4. The problem
ments chose to respond to these concerns varies
according to cultural and social values and political  Animal welfare is of increasing significance for Euro-
systems. In Switzerland, animals have been recog-      pean consumers and citizens (10, 11). The activities
nised as “beings” rather than “things” since 1992. On  of consumer groups and animal protectionists and,
May 17, 2002, the German Bundestag, voted "to          more recently, the effects of crises such as swine
give animals constitutional rights". The amendment     fever, BSE, foot-and- mouth disease and avian
will add the words "and animals" to a clause in the    influenza, have put animal production in the spot-
German constitution that requires the state to         lights. Issues such as animal welfare, food quality,
14
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 14 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 15 ======================================================================

<pre>food safety and the environment have become much           thousand million. Meat and dairy products are also
more important for the public. The calls for stricter      major imports. Most of the imported goods are used
regulation on welfare in animal production are gro-        for consumption or industrial use (see also tables 1
wing and recommendations of the Council of Europe          and 2, appendix 1 for a more detailed overview of
and EU Directives are becoming increasingly strin-         Dutch and European agricultural trade; 13).
gent (12). In other countries/regions in the world
(e.g. China, Thailand), however, animal welfare is         The three main questions that arise are:
less of a ‘hot’ topic, if at all. In such countries animal 1. What is the impact of trade liberalisation and glo-
welfare standards are often much more relaxed.                 balisation on animal welfare?
                                                           2. What possibilities do the Netherlands and the EU
Some producers feel that meeting animal welfare                have to maintain or raise animal welfare in the
standards works in their favour, as the stress created         light of trade liberalisation and globalisation?
by poor treatment can lower the price of the product,      3. Who should take responsibility for what?
and thus becomes an incentive to alter their prac -
tices (9), yet many European, and particularly Dutch       These questions are the main topics of this study.
producers, are concerned about the impact differ-
rences in animal welfare standards may have on                 1.5. Delimitation
international competition. They fear that easier wel-
fare standards may result in lower production costs        This study focuses on trade liberalisation, i.e. the
and lower product prices. Since the processing             opening of the domestic market to foreign goods by
industry, supermarkets and most consumers may not          removing barriers to exports and imports. Liberali-
be willing to pay more for products produced in            sation in the sense of less regulation is not being
accordance with more stringent standards and               considered here.
products produced in accordance with less strict
standards are coming on the market as a result of          The focus of this report is on farm animals and
the liberalisation and globalisation process, these        products from farm animals (i.e. meat, eggs, milk
producers fear that this will result in a competitive      etc.). The processing industry, processing products
disadvantage and even the bankruptcy of the do-            in which ingredients originating from farm animals
mestic (i.e. the Dutch and European) livestock             are used (e.g. eggs in shampoo and cake) is
industry. Currently, the export of Dutch meat and          considered only in passing. Fish kept for production
dairy products amounts to an annual €5 and € 3.9           purposes and household pets are not taken into
                                                                                                                15
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 15 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 16 ======================================================================

<pre>account, although some of the consequences as             termination of export restitutions (14). However,
described for the welfare of farm animals may also        some point out that this might mean that other
apply to these animals.                                   countries, particularly Australia, would step in, which
                                                          would result in even longer journey times (15).
This study focuses only on animal welfare, although       Furthermore, trade liberalisation and globalisation
much of what is written down in this study also           may result in the import of products that are
applies to other non-trade concerns.                      produced in accordance with less strict standards
                                                          than those formulated by the EU. Since many EU
The direct and indirect costs of the suggested            countries are, for several reasons, rel uctant to import
options are beyond the scope of this report.              these products, the process of trade liberalisation
                                                          and    globalisation    opens    the   possibility  for  a
2. ANIMAL WELFARE IN AN INTERNATIO-                       discussion     on   internationally    accepted     animal
     NAL CONTEXT                                          welfare standards. Such standards might initially be
                                                          less strict than the current EU welfare standards but
     2.1. Influence of trade liberalisation and           for many other countries with no animal welfare
           globalisation on animal welfare                standards at all, this is quite a big step.
     2.1.1. Positive      consequences       of    trade      2.1.2. Negative        consequences        of    trade
             liberalisation   and   globalisation     on               liberalisation    and    globalisation     on
             farm animal w elfare                                      farm animal welfare
According      to   some,   trade   liberalisation   and  Many people feel that the positive consequences of
globalisation may have a limited, but positive effect     trade liberalisation     and   globalisation    are  over-
on animal welfare in some cases. For example, the         shadowed by the expected negative consequences
termination of export restitutions for the export of live for animal welfare.
cattle to the Middle East, under the WTO-agreement        Recommendations of the Council of Europe and EU
which calls a halt to subsidising agricultural products,  Directives are becoming increasingly stringent. Al-
may have a positive effect on animal welfare. Export      ready they are more stringent than those in other
of live cattle to the Middle East not only implies long   parts of the world (12). This does not only apply to
journey times, but the handling of animals is also        countries such as China and Thailand, but also to
subject to less stringent rules. Live cattle exports to   wealthy, western countries like the US.
the Middle East are expected to decrease due to the
16
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 16 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 17 ======================================================================

<pre>Where standards between the home and exporting                2.2. Animal welfare and the global playing
country differ, imports may face trade restrictions.                 field
These may be necessary both to avoid disadvan-
taging domestic producers subject to higher stan-             2.2.1. The global playing field
dards and to reassure consumers about product             As noted in § 1.3.3., more and more protests are
quality, especially where animal welfare aspects are      being made on ethical grounds against production
concerned. The application of higher standards on         practices which may cause unnecessary pain and
import might be justified when viewed from a food         suffering to farm animals. The search for cheaper
safety or animal welfare perspective, but may also        food and greater economic efficiency is no longer
lead to non-tariff trade barriers and protectionism (9),  accepted as the sole standard against which policy
and are thus carefully scrutinised by the WTO.            choices should be measured. Animal welfare is
By lifting trade restrictions, third country products can already an important area of publ ic concern in the
be sold cheaper on the EU market than the usually         EU and it is likely to become increasingly important
more expensive EU products that are produced in           in other industrialised countries as well (9).
accordance with EU recommendations and direc-             Currently, countries can only legitimately restrict
tives. This results in trade distortion (14). Trade dis - imports if the products pose a health risks to con-
tortion might have two consequences, namely: 1)           sumers, which can be scientifically demonstrated.
stimulation of production and import of products that     The Codex Alimentarius is taken as the standard to
do not meet European animal welfare standards, but        be used for such decisions. Current international
which are demanded because they are cheaper, and          agreements in the WTO dealing with standards
2) pressure by farmers and their organisations on         exclusively address products or processes that leave
the government a) to either relax animal welfare          physical traces. They do not address factors that
legislation or not to develop new and/or more             leave no tangible effect on a product, such as animal
stringent legislation, b) to protect the domestic mar-    welfare. At present, animal welfare standards could
ket against products that do not meet EU standards,       possibly be justified by appealing to article XX (a) of
and/or c) financially compensate them for the higher      the GATT, which deals generally with exceptions to
production costs they have due to the more stringent      the agreement and permits the restriction of trade for
EU legislation. In the Netherlands the latter happens     ethical or cultural reasons. However, the wording, if
at regular intervals.                                     not the interpretation of article XX is ambiguous and
                                                          this could give rise to controversy if it were invoked
                                                          to justify the restriction of trade for animal welfare
                                                                                                              17
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 17 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 18 ======================================================================

<pre>reasons. It is expected to have a greater chance of    tional conflict over domestic policies might easily
being invoked for goods produced by child or slave     arise under present international agreements. Espe-
labour or for environmentally dangerous goods or       cially the unilateral imposition of welfare-based
production processes that endanger a given species.    production standards for imports from third countries
And even these might not meet with much success,       could be a source of conflict (9).
as the US- Mexico tuna-dolphin case attests (9).
International agreements that aim to promote freer          2.2.2. Economic aspects
agricultural trade are seen by some as an impede-      Europe has chosen to raise welfare standards
ment to addressing social concerns, such as animal     through regulating production processes. Where
welfare. There is a question as to the extent to which welfare standards are in place, consumers know
such agreements could and should acknowledge           they buy a product, which meets these standards. If
differences in values and beliefs among countries.     such markets would be opened to animal products
According to some, these agreements should not         from    countries  with   more     relaxed  standards,
undermine the primacy of domestic objectives,          consumers would not be able to make an informed
whereas others argue that the new concerns are         choice. Where domestic production costs are higher
essentially a subterfuge for those who wish to         than those in the third country (although this may not
protect their domestic agriculture from international  necessarily be the case, as is shown in Ch. 3.2),
competition (9).                                       animal production could be driven overseas and
Until recently, most countries have used a voluntary,  domestic producers might be out of business. If ani-
market approach to ensure farm animal welfare.         mal welfare standards aim to satisfy consumer con-
However, in order to address concerns like animal      cerns over animal welfare, this would undermine the
welfare, the general public now often looks to the     purpose of the regulation. Furthermore, if producers
government for regulations. Trade conflicts associa-   are also exporters and cost-efficient animal welfare
ted with animal welfare standards have not yet         preserving technologies are not available, they
arisen, probably in part because only a limited        would have to compete in markets with lower-cost
number of countries have introduced binding regu-      producers. This could seriously affect their profits (9).
lations for animal welfare, and thus ht e share of     The importing country may also face loss of profits if
trade affected has been quite limited. However, given  the imported product cannot be distinguished from
the importance of trade in livestock products, emer-   the product produced domestically under given
ging differences in regulations and the absence of     standards. It has been shown that in cases like this,
internationally acknowledged standards, an interna-    trade liberalisation may lower consumer welfare
18
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 18 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 19 ======================================================================

<pre>unless outweighed by positive benefits of product               so-called “plus option”, will be worked out.
diversity (15).
                                                                3.1. The zero option
3. HOW         TO      MAINTAIN        OR      IMPROVE
    ANIM AL WELFARE IN THE LI GHT OF                       Within this option, there are several possibilities for
    INCREASING           TRADE      LIBERALISATION         dealing with distortion of competition arising as a
    AND GLOBALISATION                                      result of differences in animal welfare standards at
                                                           national, EU and global level. It should be remem-
There are several strategies that can be followed          bered that the acceptance of the necessity for animal
with regard to animal welfare in a world of increasing     welfare measures differs greatly throughout the
globalisation and trade liberalisation:                    world and th at prevailing notions in rich countries are
1. Easing animal welfare legislation in the EU;            often perceived as ways of imposing trade barriers.
    although from an economic point of view this
    might be an attractive strategy, it does not seem           3.1.1. WTO
    realistic from an animal welfare, societal and         It is evident that the importance attached to animal
    political point of view and is not further explored    welfare varies among WTO members. At the
    in this report;                                        moment, all WTO members have the right to choose
2. Business as usual: no reduction or tightening up        their own animal welfare standards, adapted to their
    of legislation in the Netherlands and/or EU, no        own circumstances. The existing WTO agreements,
    initiatives within the chain (i.e. livestock industry, (the Agreement of the Application of Sanitary and
    processing industry, supermarkets and consu-           Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), the Agreement on
    mers) to improve farm animal welfare. Several          Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), article XX of
    initiatives could be taken here: in the WTO and        GATT, and article 20 of the Agreement on Agri-
    EU framework and in the field of bilateral             culture), would however, seem to provide a basis on
    agreements, a voluntary code of practice, infor-       which some of the animal welfare issues can be
    ming and educating consumers and investments           discussed within the WTO framework (16). Possibi-
    in innovative research. This so-called “zero           lities within the WTO framework option are:
    option” will be worked out in detail in § 3.1;         1. Recognition of multilateral standards on animal
3. Improving animal welfare by more stringent                   welfare by the WTO: this would require interna-
    legislation in the Netherlands and/or EU or on              tional core animal welfare standards that have a
    the initiative of the chain. In § 3.2 this option, the      scientific basis and are acknowledged within the
                                                                                                                 19
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 19 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 20 ======================================================================

<pre>   WTO. The same route could be followed as that         support that is minimally trade distorting or non-
   used for IOE (International Office of Epizootics)     trade distorting and independent of production; it
   standards on animal health, which can now be          is the interface for addressing internal support
   enforced    multilaterally by    the   WTO/SPS-       schemes geared to societal goals. It does not
   agreement. Products that do not meet IOE,             specifically address animal welfare. Admission of
   Codex or IPPC (=International Plant Protection        animal welfare in the green box would mean that
   Convention) standards can be refused on the           EU subsidies to welfare-friendly businesses
   basis of the SPS agreement. Although this             could be excluded from subsidy disciplines and
   probably could not be realised in the short-term,     reduction obligations, thereby opening the possi-
   it would set the process of developing internatio-    bility to make animal welfare conditions on exis -
   nal animal welfare standards in motion. Some          ting subsidy flows. According to the EU, animal
   fear that developing international animal welfare     welfare payments would typically be non-trade
   standards may lead to them being set at the           distorting. The green box is not limited or subject
   lowest common denominator or result in a              to reductions, thereby allowing the EU to allocate
   meaningless compromise. Others point out that         support for animal welfare in addition to its
   an internationally acknowledged standard on           support for other purposes. Expectations are
   animal welfare would always be an improvement         positive about the feasibility of this option, al-
   on the current situation and that in time this        though especially the Cairns countries, i.e. Aus-
   standard could be improved by new negotiations        tralia, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil and Thai-
   (17).                                                 land, raise objections (17). Whether the EU will
   The IOE identified animal welfare as a priority in    make subsidies available for welfare-friendly
   the 2001- 2005 IOE Strategic Plan: IOE member         businesses (i.e. farmers) is questionable (15).
   countries decided that, as the international       3. Restricted demolition of tariffs for products of
   reference organisation for animal health and          animal origin (meat, eggs and live animals),
   zoonoses, the IOE should also provide interna-        lower than average tariff reductions, could be
   tional leadership on animal welfare (16). In          carried through. One possibility may be found in
   drafting the standards the Netherlands should         the system of reduction of tariffs on import. Al-
   play a prominent.                                     though lower than average tariff reductions for
2. Exemption from WTO subsidy disciplines by             products of animal origin should be compensated
   admission of animal welfare in the green box:         by a higher reduction on other products, distor-
   green box payments are defined as domestic            tion of competition by countries that have less
20
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 20 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 21 ======================================================================

<pre>     strict animal welfare standards could be slowed       animal welfare. In this way, the EU is able to control
     down in this way. Negotiations on this point have     the volume of imports and prevent the undercutting
     not yet started (17).                                 of domestic producers in the EU home market. At the
     Another possibility may be found in GATT article      moment, the WTO does not allow such a distinction
     XXVIII, which states that in exceptional cases        and it is highly unlikely that this will change in the
     already concluded tariff bonds may be raised if       near to medium-term, since this would demand a
     these are compensated elsewhere. Renegotia-           complete review of the international trade law (17).
     tion of tariffs could also start for products of ani- However, representatives of the Dutch livestock
     mal origin. Southern EU states may want agricul-      industry stress the necessity of import measures in
     tural products from northern EU states to be          the form of increased tariffs for products that do not
     used in order to compensate (17).                     take account of animal welfare. According to them
4. Change of WTO regulations and their inter-              this would offer the best protection against these
     pretation: another option would be a redrafting of    imports (15).
     WTO regulations, e.g. article XX of GATT or SPS
     agreement, to include animal welfare for ethical      The Dutch government, with or without a coalition of
     reasons. Another point is that the EU may need        like- minded partners, and the EU are the designated
     to challenge the interpretation of the WTO rules      institutions to place animal welfare on the WTO
     in order to advocate a more balanced relation-        agenda. However, the public and especially NGOs
     ship between trade liberalisation and non-trade       (i.e.    animal  welfare   organisations,    consumer
     concerns such as animal welfare (16).                 organisations etc.) and chain organisations can put
                                                           pressure on the Dutch government and the EU to put
Resistance of the US and the Cairns groups against         this topic on the WTO agenda. Many of these institu-
anchoring animal welfare in new WTO legislation            tions do have an international network and should
seems to have mainly a strategic character.                make an appeal to this network to put the EU under
                                                           pressure.
An option that goes further would be to striv e within
the WTO for the possibility of preventing products               3.1.2. The European Union
not produced in accordance with the prevailing legis-      Within the EU, another option would be a change in
lation in that country from entering the market and/or     agricultural policy to allow products, which meet
introducing import measures in the form of quotas or       animal welfare standards to be subsidised. In this
higher tariffs for products that do not take account of    way, products produced in accordance with specific
                                                                                                               21
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 21 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 22 ======================================================================

<pre>animal welfare standards would be encouraged and         guise of animal welfare, when actual costs of
could result in a greater supply and lower product       production might be contained through reorganisa-
prices. The improved availability of these products      tion and the adoption of new technologies (18).
and the smaller price differences between products       Primarily, the responsibility for putting this option on
that meet specific animal welfare standards and          the EU agenda lies with the Dutch Minister of
those that do not, may eventually result in a higher     Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, perhaps sup-
demand, thus stimulating production in keeping with      ported by other EU countries that are of the same
these standards. This option links up with the           opinion. However, public opinion, and especially
changes to Common Agricultural Policy payments           NGOs and chain organisations, can put pressure on
proposed     by   the  European     Commission.     The  the Minister to place this topic on the EU agenda.
proposal is that farmers’ subsidies, especially in the   Many of these institutions do have an international
cattle sector and to a lesser extent the pig, poultry    network and should make an appeal to this network
and egg sectors, will be made conditional on com-        to put the EU under pressure.
pliance with EU issues of sustainability, including ani-
mal welfare. There might be a possibility within Rural   Representatives of the Dutch livestock industry also
Development to grant subsidies for new investments.      stress the necessity of import measures in the form
This is only possible for investments that provide       of increased tariffs for products not produced in
extra (more than national and EU legislation) animal     accordance with animal welfare standards within the
welfare and not to compensate for existing different-    EU. They see this as the best protection from these
ces in legislation on animal welfare between the EU      imports (15). Currently, the average agricultural
and third countries (15). Changes in EU subsidy poli-    import tariff within the EU is below 10%, whereas in
cy will be subject to the disciplines imposed by the     Brazil it is 30% and in developed countries on
rules of the WTO.                                        average 60% (19). It is questionable whether the
Subsidising welfare friendly production methods,         option of import measures in the form of increased
however, is subject to criticism. Given the recent       tariffs is feasible, since this would require a complete
budgetary problems, the slow growth in most EU           review of international trade law. At the moment, the
economies, rising poverty and the lack of sufficient     WTO does not allow such a distinction and it is
resources for health care, education etc., paying        highly unlikely that this will change in the near to
farmers for doing what they ought to do anyway           medium term (17). Alternatively, the EU could
cannot be justified. Critics also tell us to be careful  choose to ignore the international trade law, thereby
not to subsidise EU animal production under the          risking WTO penalties. Whether this approach is rea-
22
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 22 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 23 ======================================================================

<pre>listic is also highly questionable.                     Eurep- GAP (= good agricultural practice). Animal
                                                        welfare could be a component of Eurep- GAP.
      3.1.3. Bilateral agreements                       Adopting a voluntary code of practice may, especially
The third option is to conclude bilateral agreements    in combination with labelling, improve the ‘green or
on minimum animal welfare standards with the most       social’ image of the players involved (18).
important suppliers of products of animal origin (i.e.
Brazil, Thailand, China, and the US). The EU already    The value of a voluntary code of practice increases if
concluded bilateral agreements on minimum animal        trade and industry are submitted to inspections by an
welfare standards at the end of the 1990s. This         independent body. In this way, standards can be
process may have a positive effect, perhaps making      enforced and credibility and consumer confidence
other processes regarding animal welfare (such as       increased. This option would probably start at
international harmonisation and WTO negotiations)       national level, and later on, if successful, perhaps
easier (17).                                            expand to international level, and could be combined
                                                        with labelling, for recognition purposes.
Primarily, the responsibility for concluding bilateral
agreements lies with the Dutch Minister of Agricul-     The main responsibility for reaching a voluntary code
ture, Nature and Food Quality. However, public opi-     of practice lies within the chain, whether or not under
nion, and especially NGOs and chain organisations,      pressure from or supported by NGOs, the Dutch
can put pressure on the Minister to conclude these      government and public opinion.
bilateral agreements. NGOs and chain organisations
can facilitate this process by convincing their foreign     3.1.5. Informing and educating consumers
counterparts of the importance of Dutch and/or EU       The purpose of informing and educating consumers
animal welfare standards.                               is to build consumer awareness and confidence.
                                                        Increased consumer awareness and confidence is
      3.1.4. Voluntary code of practice                 thought to result in consumers taking responsibility
In this option, all or some of the players within the   and buying those products that meet certain animal
chain voluntarily agree to follow a specific code of    welfare standards. Putting a price on farm animal
practice. An example of such a voluntary code of        welfare may however only be successful in the
practice is that all players within the chain agree not market for fresh meat (20). Critics point out that
to produce, use or sell products that do not meet a     many consumers will not buy products that meet
specific standard. Supermarkets have introduced         animal welfare standards as long as they are more
                                                                                                             23
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 23 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 24 ======================================================================

<pre>expensive     than   produc ts   not   meeting    these  limited availability and the paucity of appropriate
standards. This is because they do not really care       labelling were deemed greater barriers than cost.
about animal welfare (21) and because the television     Labelling is often suggested as a means of
images one sees of how farm animals are some-            informing the consumer about the way the
times kept are not in the buyer's mind when standing     product is produced, but it can also increase
in the supermarket (3). Furthermore, consumers as -      awareness and fulfil an educational role. The
sume that all products in the supermarket meet at        idea is that a transparent labelling system with
least certain standards (“otherwise, they wouldn't be    several easily understood grades and wide-
sold”) (3).                                              spread consumer recognition would allow con-
Consumers can be informed and educated about             sumers and retailers to distinguish between pro-
products and production methods in several ways:         ducts and to purchase products of a known
1. Labelling of products produced in accordance          standard. Many products produced by the food
    with specific standards: studies on consumer         industry are so-called credence goods, which
    concerns on animal welfare and their impact on       means that consumers cannot discern their
    food    choice   revealed    that   77%    of  Irish quality (including animal welfare aspects) prior to
    consumers claimed to select animal friendly          or after purchase (24). Since consumers are not
    alternatives, with 70%, 64%, 53% and 38%             able to distinguish by quality, they may choose
    making similar claims in Germany, France,            the cheaper product that does not meet animal
    Britain and Italy, respectively (22, 23). However,   welfare standards. This may drive the more
    this data does not correspond with the actual        expensive product that is produced in accor-
    size of the market for food products that meet       dance with animal welfare standards from the
    certain animal welfare standards in Europe. This     market (Gresham’s law). Labelling, then, is the
    is probably because people tend to give answers      standard prescription for dealing with different
    with a socially desirable bias (21). It is also      quality, while allowing for consumer choice (25).
    conceivable that consumers’ claims may not           Consumer confidence in the labelling system
    always match their purchasing patterns for eco-      would, in turn, enhance marketing opportunities
    nomic reasons, limited availability in mainstream    for high-quality and high-value products.
    shopping outlets, or lack of transparency (i.e.
    consumers are not able to distinguish between        Labelling, however, is not a simple task, parti-
    products). According to Harper et al. (22, 23),      cularly where a substantial portion of trade is in
    and in contrast with Spruijt (3) and Robben (21),    processed products and traceability of compo-
24
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 24 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 25 ======================================================================

<pre>nents is required. In the case of meat, over 65%       products, whether imported or not, receive a
of trade is in processed goods. Detailed labelling     label that is clear, straightforward and easy to
with traceability can be fairly costly. This cost is   understand. Key words are: transparency, cus -
likely to be eventually passed on to consumers in      tommer confidence, traceability and proper con-
the form of higher prices. Exporting countries         trol (16).
could see it as a non-tariff trade barrier and
importing countries could use it as a non-tariff       Under the WTO TBT Agreement, members may
trade barrier. An important issue is what stan-        apply technical regulations, such as labelling
dards labelling is expected to certify and how         rules, to imports, provided that such regulations
these     standards    will  be    established    (9). are non-discriminatory and that they do not
Furthermore, for labelling to be successful, it is     restrict trade more than is necessary to fulfil a
necessary to ‘load’ the label. If a label is ‘loaded’, legitimate    objective.  Present     WTO     rules,
it will acquire emotional significance. Only then it   however, do not specifically address animal
is possible to direct consumers’ behaviour. This       welfare. Whether mandatory, neutral labelling is
should be done from the consumer’s point of            in accordance with WTO regulation, should
view. “What additional value (e.g. better meat         become apparent from WTO case law. The EU
quality) will I get when buying this product?”, and    has proposed agreeing an interpretative declara-
not from an ideological point of view (21).            tion in the WTO that indicates under which condi-
                                                       tions obligatory labelling of agricultural products
The studies of Harper et al. (22, 23) revealed         and processes is allowed, since appropriate
that consumers do not trust retailers, processors,     mandatory labelling schemes for food and agri-
producers or public institutions to provide the        cultural products may facilitate trade and improv e
information on the label. Their trust in institutions  market access, and thus increase the com-
providing information on matters such as animal        mercial value of products (26). Countries like the
welfare would be increased if they included            US, Australia and New Zealand are reluctant to
representatives of consumer associations.              include labelling in the negotiation process, but
                                                       are at the same time working unilaterally on the
Mandatory labelling                                    introduction of obligatory labelling programmes.
The main advantage of mandatory labelling is           Taking into account the wide appeal for labelling,
that all products are labelled, thus providing the     it would seem logical to arrange standards for
consumer with adequate information. Ideally, all       labelling and its conditions within the WTO as
                                                                                                        25
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 25 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 26 ======================================================================

<pre>   well (17).                                          expensive, will only be successful if the label is
                                                       ‘loaded’ and if consumers are seriously interes -
   Voluntary labelling                                 ted in the animal welfare aspects of products
   Voluntary labelling schemes are defined as          they are buying and, consequently, willing to pay
   standards under WTO TBT Agreement and do            more      for  products   that  are   produced    in
   not conflict with existing multilateral rules. The  accordance with animal welfare standards. Cri-
   main limitation of voluntary labelling is that only tics doubt whether consumers are willing to do
   some of the products meeting specific standards     so (3, 21). Furthermore, mandatory labelling
   have a label, leaving the consumer confused         seems to be difficult: according to the WTO,
   about the quality (including animal welfare         labelling should be non-discriminatory and not
   aspects) of the products that are not labelled.     restrict trade more than is necessary to fulfil a
   Main key words are: transparency, adequate          legitimate objective. Another point of concern is
   control by an independent body and consumer         how to include all information consumers are
   confidence. The information provided should be      interested in (i.e. food safety, animal welfare, but
   clear, straightforward and easy to understand       also other non-trade concerns such as environ-
   (16). Mutual recognition of voluntary labelling     mental aspects) in a single or a few labels, while
   schemes with non- EU countries is desirable (27).   still being transparent and clear. Besides, the
                                                       information need may differ between countries
   Perspectives of labelling                           and cultures. Internationally accepted levels re-
   Although    labelling    might  help    to   inform quire    internationally accepted standards. As
   consumers by providing them with adequate           already shown in § 3.1.1, it will be difficult to
   information, labelling is not a cure-all. In the    develop such standards. Another point of con-
   studies of Harper et al. (22, 23), the paucity of   cern is that labelling can be costly, particularly
   appropriate labelling seemed to be a greater        since traceability throughout the chain will be
   barrier than cost when buying products pro-         required. This will probably increase product cost
   duced according to specific standards, but the      and will eventually be passed on to consumers in
   outcome of these studies might be distorted by      higher prices (9). A likely alternative might be to
   socially desirable bias.                            provide meat products with a brand name.
                                                       However, like a label, the brand name should be
   The process of labelling products that do meet      ‘loaded’ in order to give consumers a reason to
   certain standards but are at the same time more     buy an A brand product. If the brand name is not
26
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 26 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 27 ======================================================================

<pre>   properly loaded, consumers will still tend to com-       more favourable than a country label should be
   pare products according to price (21).                   investigated: consumers may identify more with
   In the case of mandatory labelling, the initiative       the country they live in than with the EU (20).
   should come from the Dutch government, the EU            The Council believes that the Dutch government,
   or from the chain organisations and NGOs and             the livestock industry, supermarkets and NGOs
   be finalised in legislation. In the case of voluntary    could and should play a role in providing infor-
   labelling, the initiative should come from chain         mation to the consumer and in building consu-
   organisations and NGOs, perhaps supported by             mer awareness.
   the Dutch government and the EU. Society in
   general may also put pressure on the various          3. Information: information on products and produc-
   stakeholders to introduce labelling. It is the chain     tion methods could be presented nationally or
   that is responsible when branding products.              internationally to (specific groups within) the
                                                            general public through television and other
2. Country/region     of   origin  on   the  packaging:     media. Supermarkets could also provide infor-
   several representatives of chain organisations           mation on products and production methods, for
   and NGOs would warmly welcome an obligatory              example with through posters and leaflets.
   indication of the country or region of origin on the     Special educational programs for schools groups
   packaging of pork and chicken meat. If this is the       within the general public could be developed.
   Netherlands or another EU state, it would imply          Examples of European initiatives are the ‘Inter-
   that the product was produced in compliance              active Consumer Education Project’ and the
   with Dutch or EU legislation (28). At the moment,        ‘European Young Consumer Competition’ (16).
   such an obligation only exists for beef. Recently,       As well as the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture,
   the EU commissioners Kyprianou (Consumers)               Nature and Food Quality and the EU, chain
   and Fischer Boel (Agriculture) announced that            organisations could play a role in providing
   they were planning to investigate the feasibility of     information. NGOs could also draw attention to
   this option (29). Introduction of an obligatory          this issue through initiating or supporting cam-
   indication of the country or region of origin            paigns and providing information on this topic to
   should be accompanied by a marketing/informa -           their target groups.
   tion campaign to build consumer awareness and            Providing more information on products and
   explain the meaning is of this kind of information       production methods, may build greater consumer
   (‘loading of the label’). Whether an EU label is         awareness. This could stimulate the demand for
                                                                                                          27
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 27 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 28 ======================================================================

<pre>    animal friendly products. It would however take a          3.2. The plus option
    long time before greater consumer awareness
    results in a change in attitude, affecting con-       In the plus option, animal welfare will be improved by
    sumer purchasing patterns. Furthermore, despite       more stringent legislation in the Netherlands and/or
    the information, the problem of higher prices for     EU, or on the initiative of the chain. Additional efforts
    products produced in accordance with animal           in the field of animal welfare are warmly welcomed
    welfare standards still remains. It is open to        by the Council, but will probably be on a voluntary
    question whether consumers are willing to pay         basis and on the initiative of non-governmental
    more for a product that does not have a distinct      stakeholders, given the current political climate in the
    added value (30).                                     Netherlands.
    3.1.6. Investing in innovative research               In addition to the options as described in § 3.1.1. - §
In a world of increasing trade liberalisation and         3.1.5, the Dutch government can raise animal
globalisation, the European market will be supplied       welfare standards by promoting more stringent legis-
not only with products produced on the home market        lation. This can be done at a national or EU level.
but also with competing products coming from              Raising standards on the initiative of the chain may
countries who produce more cheaply. If the Dutch          offer an opportunity for the chain to anticipate more
and European agricultural sector wants to surviv e in     stringent legislation, to build up a lead in producing
the long term, this is not only likely to require greater in accordance with more stringent standards and
specialisation, intensification and scaling up (31), but  invest in new production methods at a favourable
also investment in innovative research focussed on        moment (33).
maintaining      animal    welfare   while   decreasing
production costs (32). The initiative for investing in    The consequence of more stringent legislation is that
innovative research should come from the agri-            differences in animal welfare standards at global le-
cultural sector and may be supported by the Dutch         vel will become greater. Farmers in the European
government. Perhaps EU subsidies will also be avai-       Union, supported by the product boards and trade
lable for this kind of research.                          unions, contend that they should be compensated
                                                          for any loss in competitiveness they might suffer as a
                                                          result of more stringent legislation. The European
                                                          Commission is proposing to change the structure of
                                                          the Common Agricultural Policy payments. Subsidies
28
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 28 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 29 ======================================================================

<pre>will then also be made conditional on compliance       cases, e.g. export of live cattle to the Middle East
with EU sustainability issues, including animal wel-   may decrease due to the termination of export re-
fare. Subsidising farmers for compliance with EU       bates (14) and the process of trade liberalisation and
sustainability issues, however, is subject to serious  globalisation may open the possibility for a discus -
criticism (18).                                        sion on internationally accepted standards on farm
Besides the fear of putting the competitiveness of     animal welfare. However, many people feel that the
the domestic sector at risk, it is thought that more   positive consequences of trade liberalisation and
stringent legislation will result in the transfer of   globalisation are overshadowed by the expected
welfare problems abroad. This would result in the EU   negative consequences of trade liberalisation and
importing products that are not produced in accor-     globalisation for animal welfare. The most important
dance with EU animal welfare standards (16).           negative consequence seems to be distortion of
                                                       competition (14).
The Council would like to point out that producing in
line with more stringent standards will not neces -    In dealing with a world of increasing liberalisation
sarily increase production or processing costs, espe-  and globalisation, several strategies can be followed
cially if appropriate cost-containing technologies can with regard to animal welfare:
be found (33). Furthermore, improved animal welfare    1. Easing legislation in the area of animal welfare in
is often synonymous with increased productivity, en-       the EU. Although from an economic point of view
hanced product quality and greater unit profitability      this might be an attractive strategy, from an
(34, 35). Investment in innovative research will be        animal welfare, societal and political point of view
necessary, not only to maintain animal welfare while       this option does not seem to be realistic and is
decreasing production costs, but also to raise animal      not further explored in this report;
welfare without increasing production costs (32). The  2. Business as usual: no easing or more stringent
initiative for innovative research should be taken by      legislation on animal welfare in the Netherlands
the agricultural sector, but may be supported by the       and/or the EU, no initiatives within the chain (i.e.
Dutch government and the EU.                               livestock industry, processing industry, super-
                                                           markets and consumers) to improve farm animal
4. CONCLUSIONS                                             welfare. This so-called “zero option” seems to be
                                                           the most realistic option, given the political
Trade liberalisation and globalisation may have a          climate in the Netherlands and the different
limited, but positive effect on animal welfare in some     points of view within the EU concerning the
                                                                                                             29
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 29 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 30 ======================================================================

<pre>     interest of animal welfare. Several initiatives    EU countries in putting non-trade concerns on the
     could be taken here: in the WTO and EU frame-      WTO agenda seems to have more to do with nego-
     work and in the field of bilateral agreements, a   tiation strategy. Nevertheless, even when animal
     voluntary code of practice, informing and educa-   welfare is placed on the WTO agenda, this strategy
     ting consumers and investments in innovative       will only have results in the long term, and other
     research.                                          strategies for dealing with the tense relationship be-
3. Improving animal welfare by more stringent           tween liberalisation/globalisation and animal welfare
     legislation in the Netherlands and/or the EU or    in the EU, and more specifically the Netherlands,
     on the initiative of the chain. The additional     should meanwhile also be pursued.
     efforts suggested in this option, the so-called
     “plus option”, are warmly welcomed by the          The Council remarks that it is of uttermost impor-
     Council, but will probably be on a voluntary basis tance that the EU operates as one when putting ani-
     and on the initiative of non-governmental stake-   mal welfare on the WTO agenda. Efforts to put
     holders (and under pressure of the public opinion  animal welfare on the WTO agenda may fail if the
     and NGOs and supported by the Dutch govern-        different EU countries all speak for themselves and
     ment), given the current political climate in the  not with one single voice. Another option for getting
     Netherlands.                                       animal welfare on the agenda is that the Netherlands
                                                        forms a coalition with like- minded EU partners and
Within the zero option, a major step could be made if   third countries. In order to ease the path for WTO
animal welfare is put on the WTO agenda. Ideally,       standards on animal welfare, the EU or the coalition
the WTO would encourage and support the develop-        could prepare animal welfare standards in advance,
ment of internationally acknowledged farm animal        thereby facilitating the discussion.
welfare standards. The application of other WTO re-
lated instruments, i.e. the admission of animal         The Council for Animal Affairs is of the opinion that
welfare in the green box, restricted demolition of      all parties involved (i.e. Dutch government and/or
tariffs, and/or a change of WTO regulations and their   EU, chain organisations, NGOs and Dutch and/or
interpretation, however, should also be a point for     European society) have their own responsibility in
attention. The Dutch Product Boards for Livestock,      dealing with animal welfare and could all contribute
Meat and Eggs are not very optimistic about the         to this process in their own way by making use of the
feasibility of putting animal welfare on the WTO        means at their disposal. The Council recommends
agenda, although the reluctance of many major non-      the next tracks for dealing with farm animal welfare
30
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 30 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 31 ======================================================================

<pre>in a world of increasing trade liberalisation and                and the processing industry will only use
globalisation:                                                   products produced in accordance with
                                                                 specific animal welfare standards; initiative
Short-term                                                       by the supermarkets and/or processing
Track 1: providing information to increase consumer              Industry, probably under pressure from
          awareness by all stakeholders involved (i.e.           public opinion, NGOs and          the Dutch
          Dutch government, the chain, NGOs etc.)                government.
          (preferably in combination with track 2
          and/or 3).                                    Track 5: bilateral negotiations on production in line
                                                                 with EU animal welfare standards with the
Track 2: starting consultation about voluntary label-            most important exporting countries; Dutch
          ling of products of which the relation with            government initiatives, under pressure from
          animal welfare is obvious; branding might              public opinion, NGOs and the chain.
          be an alternative; chain initiatives, for in-
          stance under pressure from public opinion,    Track 6: enforcing changes in the structure of Com-
          NGOs and the Dutch government (prefe-                  mon Agricultural Policy payments, thereby
          rably in combination with track 1).                    making     subsidies  conditional   on  com-
                                                                 pliance with EU sustainability issues, inclu-
Track 3: investigating the feasibility and if possible           ding animal welfare; Dutch government
          realising an obligatory indication of the              initiatives, pressure from public opinion,
          country or region of origin on the packaging           NGOs and the chain.
          of meat within the Netherlands or the EU;
          initiative for a study on feasibility has al- Track 7: placing animal welfare on the WTO agenda
          ready been announced by the EU (prefe-                 and starting with the development of stan-
          rably in combination with track 1).                    dards on farm animal welfare within the
                                                                 WTO or IOE (in which case the IOE stan-
Track 4: starting consultation about a voluntary code            dards should have an obligatory character);
          of practice as a consequence of which                  Dutch government initiatives, under pres -
          supermarkets will only sell products pro-              sure from public opinion, NGOs and the
          duced in accordance with specific animal               chain.
          welfare standards (link to Eurep-GAP?)
                                                                                                            31
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 31 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 32 ======================================================================

<pre>Track 8: investment in innovative research to main-             jor role in developing standards on animal
         tain   animal    welfare   while   decreasing          welfare in this phase).
         production costs; sector initiatives, pro-
         bably supported by the Dutch government       Track 5: investment in innovative research to main-
         and/or the EU.                                         tain animal welfare while decreasing pro-
                                                                duction costs (continuation of track 8,
Medium-term                                                     short-term).
Track 1: realising branding or voluntary labelling of
         products of which the relation with animal    If not successfully completed in the short-term,
         welfare is obvious (continuation of track 2,  tracks 1, 3 and 5 should be continued in the
         short-term)                                   medium-term as well.
Track 2: realising a voluntary code of practice as a   Long-term
         consequence of which supermarkets will        Track 1: anchoring of farm animal welfare within the
         only sell products that are produced in line           WTO; Dutch government initiatives, under
         with specific animal welfare standards (link           pressure from public opinion, NGOs and
         to Eurep-GAP?) and the processing indus -              the chain (continuation track 4, medium-
         try will only use products that are produced           term).
         in line with animal welfare standards (con-
         tinuation of track 4, short-term).            Track 2: working out and realisation of the plus op-
                                                                tion, which is a responsibility of all stake-
Track 3: realising a change in the structure of Com-            holders.
         mon Agricultural Policy payments (continu-
         ation of track 6, short-term).
Track 4: development of standards (by the WTO or
         IOE) and a discussion within the WTO on
         WTO-regulations and their interpretation
         and financial instruments (continuation of
         track 7, short-term; scientist can play a ma-
32
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 32 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 33 ======================================================================

<pre>33</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 33 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 34 ======================================================================

<pre>        REFERENCES
1. http://encarta.msn.com
2. Anonymous (2001). Scientists' assessment of the impact of housing and management on animal welfare.
    J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci., 4(1), 3-52
3. Spruijt, B. Personal comments, 9-6- 2004
4. Giffroy, J.M., and Beaufays, J.P. (2001). Het Dierenwelzijn. Publicatie van de Stichting Prins Laurent, nr. 1,
    Belgium
5. Brambell, F.W.R. (chairman) (1965). Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the welfare of
    animals kept under intensive husbandr y systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office
6. http://www.cnn.com
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk
8. http://www.europa.eu.int
9. Blandford, D., and Fulponi, L. (1999). Emerging public concerns in agriculture: domestic policies and
    international trade commitments. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26 (3), 409-424
10. Bennett, R.M. (1996). People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5, 3- 11
11. Miele, M., and Parisi, V. (2001). L’Etica del Mangiare, i valori e le preoccupazioni dei consumatori per il
    benessere animali negli allevamenti: un’applicazione dell’analisi Means-end Chain. Rivista di Economia
    Agraria, Anno LVI, 1, 81-103
12. Blokhuis, H.J., Jones, R.B., Geers, R., Miele, M., and Veissier, I. (2003). Measuring and monitoring animal
    welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare, 12, 445-455
13. Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2004). Facts and figures of the Dutch agri-sector
    2004/2005.
14. Haagsche Courant. Akkoord over wereldhandel bedreigt dierenwelzijn, 10-8-2004.
15. Jongerius, S.B.M. Personal comments, 10-12-2004 and 22-2-2005.
16. Wigboldus, L. (2004). Room for Manoeuvre - options for animal welfare policy in the European Union.
    Lelystad/Wageningen: ASG- WUR
17. Anonymous. Personal comments, 11- 11-2003 en 23-12-2004
18. Fulponi, L. Personal comments, 31-3-2005
19. Financieel Dagblad, 5-9-2003
34
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 34 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 35 ======================================================================

<pre>20. Blokhuis, H. Personal comments, 17-6-2004
21. Robben, H. Personal comments, 13- 9-2004
22. Harper, G.C., and Henson, S.J. (2000). Consumer values and farm animal welfare – the comparative
    report. The University of Reading, U.K., EU FAIR CT98-3678
23. Harper, G.C., and Henson, S.J. (2001). The level of consumer concern about animal welfare – the
    comparative report. The University of Reading, U.K., EU FAIR CT98-3678
24. Caswell, J.A., and Mojduska, E.M. (1996). Using informational labelling to influence the market for quality
    in food products. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics
    Association, San Antonio, Texas
25. Bureau, J.- C., Marette, S., and Schiavina, A. (1998). Non-tariff trade barriers and consumer's information:
    the case of EU- US trade dispute on beef. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25 (4), 435-460
26. Committee on Agriculture (2001). Special session. Mandatory labelling for agricultural products . Note by
    the European Communities
27. Commission of the European Communities, 2002. Communication from the commission to the council and
    the European Parliament on animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in third world countries and the
    implications for the EU. Brussels, 18.11.2002 COM(2002) 626 final
28. Meeting of the Council of Animal Affairs, 22-2-2005
29. Agrarisch Dagblad. Brussel: herkomst kipfilet moet wellicht op etiket. 1-3-2005
30. Miele, M., and Vittoria, P. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food
    choice, strategies to address consumer concerns about animal welfare. University of Pisa, Department of
    Agricultural Economics, Italy.
31. Massink, H., and Meester, G. (2002). Boeren bij vrijhandel. LNV-rapport
32. Klaver, J. Personal comments, 1- 11-2004
33. Jeurissen, R. (2004). Institutional conditions of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 87-
    96
34. New Zealand Meat Research and Development Council (1997). Meat quality, pH and animal stress. New
    Zealand Meat Research and Development Council, Wellington
35. Jones, R.B. (2002). The role of comparative psychology in the development of effective envir onmental
    enrichment strategies to improve poultry welfare. Intern. J. Comparative Psychol., 15, 77-106
                                                                                                              35
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 35 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 36 ======================================================================

<pre>        APPENDICES
1.  AGRICULTURAL TRADE BY THE NETHERLANDS AND EU
Table 1: agricultural trade by the EU
                                      EU export                         EU import
Agricultural products                 EU export       Dutch share       EU import         Dutch share
                                      (x € thousand   (%)               (x € thousand     (%)
                                      million)                          million)
Live animals                          4.6             15.1              4.0               7.9
Meat and meat preparations            23.4            19.4              21.6              8.2
of which:
   Bovine meat                        5.3             24.2              5.3               11.0
   Pork                               9.3             15.9              6.8               3.6
   Poultry meat                       3.9             29.2              3.4               9.7
Dairy products and eggs               21.2            18.7              18.1              11.3
of which:
   Dairy                              19.0            18.4              16.2              11.5
   Eggs                               0.9             42.5              0.8               10.9
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2004). Facts and figures of the Dutch agri-sector
2004/2005.
36
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 36 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 37 ======================================================================

<pre>Table 2: agricultural trade by the Netherlands
                                     Dutch trade with EU countries   Dutch trade with third
                                                                     countries
Agricultural products                Imports         Exports         Imports           Exports
                                     (x € million)   (x € million)   (x € million)     (x € million)
Livestock                            381             793             22                95
Meat                                 1805            4404            409               351
Eggs                                 204             475             12                47
Dairy                                1913            3145            315               1023
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (2004). Facts and figures of the Dutch agri-sector
2004/2005.
                                                                                                        37
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 37 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 38 ======================================================================

<pre>2. LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
The following people have contributed to this report:
•  Dr. L. Fulponi, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
•  R. Lapperre, The Netherlands Permanent Mission Geneva
•  Prof. B. Spruijt, Department of Animals, Science and Society, Veterinary Faculty, Utrecht University
•  Dr. H. Blokhuis, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen- UR
•  Prof. G. Crijns, Institute for Responsible Business, Nyenrode University
•  Prof. H. Robben, Centre for Supply Chain Management, Nyenrode University
•  Prof. R. Jeurissen, Nijenrode Centre for Sustainability, Nyenrode University
•  J. Klaver, Product Boards for Livestock, Meat and Eggs
•  S.B.M. Jongerius, Product Boards for Livestock, Meat and Eggs
•  Y. Kleekamp, Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals
•  M. de Jong-Timmerman, Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals
•  J. Kossen, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
•  H.W.A. Swinkels, Central Organisation for the Meat Industry
38
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 38 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 39 ======================================================================

<pre>3. PUBLICATIONS
The Council for Animal Affairs has published the following reports since 2002. All reports are in Dutch. An
overview of previous publications is available at the Council’s office and at
www.raadvoordierenaangelegenheden.nl.
PUBLICATIONS IN  2005:
RDA 2005/01        De rol van wild bij de insleep en verspreiding van klassieke varkenspest en mond- en
                   klauwzeer in Nederland
RDA 2005/02        Immunosterilisatie als een alternatief voor de huidige wijze van castratie in de
                   varkenshouderij
PUBLICATIONS IN  2004:
RDA 2004/01        Dierziektebeleid met draagvlak – Advies over de bestrijding van zeer besmettelijke
                   dierziekten; deel 2 – Onderbouwing van het advies
RDA 2004/02        Herinrichting van het distributie- en kanalisatiesysteem van diergeneesmiddelen in
                   Nederland
RDA 2004/03        Negatief- en positieflijst voor vissen, reptielen en amfibieën ter invulling van artikel 33 van
                   de Gezondheids- en welzijnswet voor dieren
RDA 2004/04        Bestialiteit
RDA 2004/05        Strategieën om te komen tot een efficiëntere opsporing van besmettelijke, aangifteplichtige
                   dierziekten
RDA 2004/06        Verkenning van de toekomstperspectieven voor agroproductieparken in Nederland
Jaarverslag 2003
PUBLICATIONS IN  2003:
RDA 2003/01        Advies omtrent dierziekten en zoönosen, waarvoor hobbymatig gehouden dieren vatbaar
                   zijn en als drager kunnen fungeren, die een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor de
                   gezondheid van mensen en bedrijfsmatig gehouden dieren en die in het kader van grote
                   bestrijdingscampagnes relevant zijn
                                                                                                                39
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 39 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 40 ======================================================================

<pre>RDA 2003/02       Wet- en regelgeving omtrent hobbydieren
RDA 2003/03       Mogelijke dierenwelzijnproble men in de paardenhouderij
RDA 2003/04       Zorgen voor je paard
RDA 2003/05       Criteria voor dodingsmethoden voor paling en meerval
RDA 2003/06       Het doden van drachtige grote landbouwhuisdieren
RDA 2003/07       Negatief- en positieflijst voor zoogdieren en vogels ter invulling van artikel 33 van de
                  Gezondheids- en welzijnswet voor dieren
RDA 2003/08       Dierziektebeleid met draagvlak – Advies over de bestrijding van zeer besmettelijke
                  dierziekten; deel 1 – Advies
Jaarverslag 2002
PUBLICATIONS IN 2002:
RDA 2002/01       Minimum w elzijnseisen tijdens bestrijdingscampagnes
RDA 2002/02       Fokken met recreatiedieren (1)
RDA 2002/03       Fokken met recreatiedieren (2)
RDA 2002/04       Advies aan de Directeur Landbouw van het Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
                  Visserij inzake een plan van aanpak voor de bestrijding van aangeboren afwijkingen bij
                  katten
RDA 2002/05       Een toetsingskader en toelatingsprocedure voor aanwijzing van nieuwe voor productie te
                  houden vissoorten
40
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 40 =================================================================

<br><br>