The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and Prospects 161 Nest Box, and a Litter Area

The EU Ban on Battery Cages: History and 11CHAPTER Prospects Michael C. Appleby Introduction n June 15, 1999, the Euro- forty four in 2002). Perhaps its most Council of Ministers the power to leg- pean Union (EU) passed a important activity is the preparation islate. The Council of Ministers Odirective on the welfare of lay- of conventions. The only one widely (sometimes called the Council of the ing hens, requiring that battery cages known is the European Convention EU but not to be confused with the (so called because they are arranged on Human Rights, and most people Council of Europe) is the main deci- in batteries of rows and tiers) be assume that the EU produced it. One sion-making body. It includes one rep- phased out by 2012. Enriched laying area in which the council has been resentative from each country; a con- cages (which may also be arranged in active is animal welfare. Indeed it has fusing feature, however, is that these batteries but which provide increased stated that “the humane treatment of representatives vary. For agricultural area and height, when compared with animals is one of the hallmarks of matters, the Council of Ministers con- conventional cages, and a perch, nest Western civilisation” (Appleby, Hugh- sists of the ministers of agriculture box, and litter area) will still be es, and Elson 1992). In 1976 it pro- from fifteen countries. A vital aspect allowed. This chapter outlines how duced the Convention on the Protec- of the Council is that its presidency is this directive came about, and the tion of Animals kept for Farming held for six months by each country social, economic, and political issues Purposes. Though not legally binding in turn, and the presiding country involved. It considers prospects for on member countries until they rati- takes most of the initiative for that the future, both within and outside fied it, member countries accepted period, often attempting to impose the EU, and implications for welfare the responsibility to include the con- its own agenda. The United Kingdom of laying hens in the United States. vention’s provisions in their national presided for the first half of 1998. legislation. This convention will be Germany presided for the first half of considered later. 1999. Both periods were critical in The Council of The EU, which has existed under a the course of the battery cage issue, number of names, such as the Euro- as shall be seen. Europe and the pean Community and the European The EU can enact regulations and Economic Community, started as a directives, among other legislation. European Union subset of the Council of Europe and Regulations are binding throughout First it is necessary to explain the now includes fifteen countries (Table the EU and overrule any contradicto- institutions involved. One influential 1). It has three key bodies. The Euro- ry national legislation. Directives, by grouping—little known, even in pean Commission is appointed by contrast, are not operative in the Europe—is the Council of Europe. member countries to run the show, member countries. They direct each The Council was established in 1949 including drafting legislation. The country to pass national legislation to to increase cooperation among European Parliament consists of put them into effect. This require- nations; it represents most of the members elected by constituents in ment is binding, so that countries will countries of Europe (the number was each country; it shares with the have at least the same minimum stan- 159 and this affects attitudes). The most Table 1 persuasive explanation, though, is Countries of the European Union and the that concern has developed largely in people who were less involved with System of Qualified Majority Voting Used animals than were others. The United by the Council of Ministers* Kingdom and the Netherlands, for example, are more industrialized Country Votes Country Votes than many other countries, and pres- sure for animal protection has come mostly from city dwellers rather than Austria 4 Italy 10 those involved in farming. A revealing Belgium 5 Luxembourg 2 snapshot was provided in 1981 by a review of which countries had then Denmark 3 Netherlands 5 ratified the Council of Europe’s 1976 Finland 3 Portugal 5 Convention on the Protection of Ani- mals kept for Farming Purposes France 10 Spain 8 (Table 2). Of the twenty-one member Germany 10 Sweden 4 countries, most of the eleven that ratified first were from the north and Greece 5 United Kingdom 10 had an average of only 6 percent of the population involved in agricul- Ireland 3 ture. Switzerland is relatively south- Total 87 ern but also relatively industrialized and ratified early, along with northern Required for Directive to be adopted 62 nations. Countries that ratified later Blocking minority 26 had a population average of 21 percent involved in agriculture. Most of *Number of votes is determined primarily by population. these countries were southern. Source: Council of the European Union 2003 Though a northern country, Ireland was in this group, too, and 23 percent dards (for example, the same mini- with votes weighted by countries’ of its population was involved in agri- mum space allowance for hens in populations (Table 1). culture. The north-south dichotomy cages). It has to be said, though, that The emergence of these complex may have reflected not only differ- when countries are unenthusiastic structures is in large part accounted ences in attitude but also the fact about directives they may delay pass- for by the diversity of the countries of that, where many people are engaged ing legislation as long as possible and Europe, and all that this has meant in agriculture, governments are skimp on the details. If they wish, historically and politically. That diver- unwilling to impose restrictions that countries may legislate for higher sity is further reflected in attitudes may affect their livelihood. Indeed, standards within their own borders— about animals. the agricultural industry has always for example, a greater space been particularly vociferous and effec- allowance in cages—but they cannot tive in lobbying for its interests. generally restrict imports of related Attitudes about It is relevant to note that priorities products from other member coun- other than animal welfare may also tries—such as eggs produced more Animal Welfare influence welfare, and that such pri- cheaply. (For one exception, see the It is well recognized that concern for orities also vary among countries. section on page 164 on Sweden.) For animal welfare varies across Europe, Norway, for example, has legislation regulations and directives, the mech- being generally stronger in the to limit farm size because it regards anism is as follows: The Commission north—particularly the United King- rural employment as important, and drafts legislation, either on its own dom, the Netherlands, Germany, and this limitation probably has some initiative or when requested to do so Scandinavia—and weaker in the benefits for animal welfare. France by the Council. The Parliament may south. Reasons are complex. A num- puts emphasis on food quality, which amend the draft. The Council amends ber of factors correlate with this vari- also has some positive effects: many it further and passes or rejects the ation, including temperature (it is people believe that non-cage eggs final version, with joint authority hotter in the south, which affects how taste better, and some of these eggs from the Parliament. On matters such animals are kept) and religion are probably bought in France for this as those of concern here, this deci- (Catholicism is commoner in the reason. sion is made by “qualified majority,” south, Protestantism in the north, In recent years concern for animal 160 The State of the Animals II: 2003 welfare has grown in southern Europe, as indicated by public opin- Table 2 ion polls. There is public sympathy for Ratification of the Council of Europe’s high-profile campaigns by celebrities such as Brigitte Bardot, and scientists 1976 Convention on the Protection and scientific bodies have increased of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes their interest in, and support for, ani- by 1981, and the Proportion of Each mal welfare research. The story that follows is, therefore, not simply one of Country’s Population Involved the north outvoting the south or in Agriculture browbeating it into agreement. How- ever, southern governments do con- Agricultural Labor Agricultural Labor tinue to be less positive than north- Ratified (percent) Not Yet Ratified (percent) ern governments about animal Belgium/Luxembourg 4 Austria 9 welfare (Sansolini 1999a). Publication of Ruth Harrison’s Ani- Cyprus — Greece 30 mal Machines in the United Kingdom in 1964 had a huge, international Denmark 8 Iceland 9 impact. It greatly increased awareness France 9 Ireland 23 of factory farming methods, including battery cages, and concern for farm Netherlands 5 Italy 12 animal welfare. The U.K. government Norway 8 Liechtenstein — set up the Brambell Committee (which issued a report in 1965), Sweden 5 Malta 5 passed the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Switzerland 5 Portugal 26 Provisions) Act in 1968, and established an independent Farm Animal United Kingdom 2 Spain 17 Welfare Council (FAWC). Both the West Germany 4 Turkey 54 Brambell Report and FAWC have had an international influence, too, Average 6 21 including their development of the concept of Five Freedoms (Table 3). Source: Ludvigsen et al. 1982 Table 3 The Five Freedoms* Animals should have: Freedom from hunger and thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area Freedom from pain, injury and disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment Freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities, and company of the animal's own kind Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering *The concept originated from a phrase in the Brambell Report (Brambell 1965) and was developed by the U.K.

Load more