Injecting animal welfare in renewed EU-Latin American trade relationships

18 July 2023

As leaders from the EU and from the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) gather in Brussels for the third EU-CELAC summit, willingness to accelerate the conclusion of controversial trade agreements is on the agenda. What’s at stake for animals?

During the EU-CELAC Summit on 17-18 July, the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission and Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Mercosur countries reiterated their “determination to work towards the conclusion of the Agreement between the EU and MERCOSUR by the end of 2023”. 

Instead of pushing forward an unsustainable and harmful trade policy, the EU should redesign  its trade deals to be compatible with the EU Green Deal and the Farm-to-Fork Strategy.  These deals, as exemplified by the EU-Mercosur FTA, grant further unconditional market access to animal based products, leading to an increase in the trade and further fuelling the intensification of farming both in the EU and abroad. This trend not only implies poor animal welfare conditions, but also raises public health concerns in terms of zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Intensification of animal production also generates high levels of deforestation, impacting the welfare of millions of wild animals.

For all these reasons, Eurogroup for Animals, together with 50 civil society organisations from South America and Europe, and with the support of MEPs from the Greens/EFA, the Left and S&D, organised an international conference calling for ‘A new EU-Latin America trade relationship for the 21st Century’. 

The Left in the EP

During the conference, a wide range of speakers from the EU and South America agreed that the EU-Mercosur deal is toxic for indigenous people, workers, the environment and animals, and that the proposed additional protocol offers nothing more than cosmetic, unenforceable adjustments. Furthermore, the risks of the deal aggravating deforestation cannot be restrained by the recent EU legislation on imported deforestation, given that the legislation ignores many products that contribute to deforestation and other biomes destroyed by intensive agriculture. For example, soy-fed animals such as poultry are not covered by the legislation. 

Other speakers echoed Eurogroup for Animals’ criticism of the EU-Mexico and EU-Chile agreements. These deals have had devastating consequences for local communities, including pollution and destruction of natural habitats, and  their “modernised”  versions are likely to have further negative impacts on animal welfare, human rights, deforestation, the climate crisis and biodiversity. While the agreements do include some animal welfare provisions – including on animal sentience and growth promoters and, in the case of Mexico, a standalone chapter on animal welfare and antimicrobial resistance – the language is weak and will do nothing to offset the negative impacts unconditional trade liberalisation will have on animals, people and the planet.

All eyes are now on the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to avoid fast-tracking the EU-Chile and the EU-Mexico FTAs by side-stepping national and regional parliaments and removing Member States’ veto right. This is critical given the range of negative impacts the agreements will have on animal welfare, human rights, the climate crisis and biodiversity. Concerning the EU-Mercosur FTA, Eurogroup for Animals calls for a full renegotiation of the deal, including conditioning all trade preferences granted in the agreement to EU-equivalent animal welfare standards.

Regards Mark

Industrial animal farming can continue polluting as the European Parliament waters down emissions directive

12 July 2023

CIWF

The European Parliament has voted to exclude emissions from industrial cattle farms from the Industrial Emissions Directive. The Parliament also voted for scrapping the Commission’s proposal for updated thresholds for pig and poultry farms. Thereby the proposal from the European Commission, that could reduce emissions from the largest polluters that keep animals in cramped conditions, is substantially weakened and puts the EU off track on its climate commitments.

The Industrial Emissions Directive controls emissions from the largest industrial installations in the EU, including a small number of the largest pig and poultry farms. Any installation controlled by the IED is forced to reduce emissions into air, water and soil and needs a permit to operate. With the European Commission proposal, the Directive would increase the coverage from 18% to 60% of emissions of ammonia from cattle, pigs and poultry, and extend the coverage from 3% to 43% of methane emissions. 

The Parliament voted for going back to the current insufficient thresholds of 750 Livestock Units that only cover farms with 40,000 poultry, 2,000 pigs and 750 sows or more, with cattle farms entirely excluded. This stands in stark contrast to the Commission’s proposal of 150 Livestock Units which would cover all large farms, including cattle as it is the main emitter. In numbers this would mean that farms with example 500 pigs, or 150 dairy cows, or 10,700 laying hens or 21,400 broiler chickens would be included while the Directive would not affect small and medium sized farms.

In addition, the result of the Parliament’s vote shows a declining ambition even below the current Industrial Emissions Directive by further reducing the obligations for the industrial poultry and pigs farms with 750 Livestock Units and that will be covered by the Directive.

Animal farming is responsible for 67% of EU ammonia emissions and more than 50% of EU methane emissions. Cattle farming is by far the biggest source of methane emissions from agriculture. Failure to reduce these emissions puts the EU on track to break its commitment under the Global Methane Pledge (pledging to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030) as well as failing on its Zero Pollution Action Plan. In order to reduce emissions it will be necessary to address more of the large livestock farms. In addition to the negative impact the intensification of animal farming has had on animals, a strong Industrial Emissions Directive would bring significant health and environmental benefits for citizens.

Overall, the Parliament’s vote points to an even lower climate ambition than the agreed position by the Council. Earlier in spring, the Environmental Ministers agreed to include cattle in the scope but increase the thresholds as compared to the Commission’s proposal. The revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive will now go to interinstitutional negotiations (trilogues) between the Council, Parliament and the Commission. The results of the negotiations can potentially mean that the IED will continue to exempt the majority of the largest polluters.

The debate around the Industrial Emissions Directive has pinpointed how EU animal farms have intensified during the last years, with detrimental impact on animal welfare and with the EU potentially failing to address their emissions if this is not rectified in trilogues. 

For more information, please see the briefing by Eurogroup for Animals’ members Compassion in World Farming and FOUR PAWS.

Regards Mark