Young pig tagged in a pen. Europeans want more animal protection. As shown by the latest Eurobarometer survey on animal welfare, more than 93 per cent agree that “imported products from outside the EU should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied in the EU.”

The European Union (EU) is a global leader in setting global standards, not only in the field of labour and environment, but also animal welfare. That’s something we should praise, even if there is still a long way to go. The EU is also seen by many as the strongest advocate of rules-based free trade, especially since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.

It is in that context that a pan-European animal advocacy organisation representing 58 members from across the EU and beyond launched in October a set of model provisions for EU free trade agreements aimed at better addressing the negative impact trade has on animal welfare. It is especially urgent as key trade negotiations from major meat importers are under way or about to get started.

Trade liberalisation, which substantially covers all trade including animal-based products, has a negative impact on animal welfare. Negotiating market access with third partners inevitably leads to opening our own market, and thus to an increasing amount of imports of cheap products respecting lower animal welfare standards than those applicable in the EU. This has consequences within and outside Europe.

First, it leads to more suffering for the animals involved in the production process abroad. European consumers will buy the cheap products, especially in the absence of a labelling system reflecting animal welfare standards. By doing so they will fuel the demand for such products, and thus the production in the partner country. As a concrete example, when buying meat, one can think about what animals have endured when transported and slaughtered.

The second problem is lack of a level playing field. While the EU has strong regulations to ensure that imports respect sufficient standards, these rules barely cover animal welfare.

Imported products do not have to respect standards as high as our own, which makes EU producers less competitive. This in turn puts pressure on European authorities not to improve animal welfare standards in Europe, to avoid increasing the regulatory burden.

This dilemma has already appeared clearly in the Brexit debate where over the summer concerns were growing that the UK would not be able to maintain its high animal welfare standards if it were to follow the path of ‘Global Britain’ expressed by Prime Minister May.

At a European level, one can already notice a slowdown in trade-related measures linked to animal welfare regulations.

And yet, Europeans want more animal protection. As shown by the latest Eurobarometer survey on animal welfare, more than 93 per cent agree that “imported products from outside the EU should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied in the EU.”

This is not the case at the moment and it needs to change. The current EU practice in trade policy has been to divide animal welfare issues into animal welfare strictly speaking and wildlife conservation and trafficking.

The former is usually addressed by a short reference to promoting cooperation either in the chapter on sanitary-phytosanitary measures, or more recently on regulatory cooperation. The latter is referred to in trade and sustainable development chapters, generally by a reference to abiding by international commitments.

Unfortunately, this is not enough. For example, the EU has liberalised trade with Ukraine since 2016, and while the agreement contains a requirement for Kiev to align its animal welfare standards with Brussels, the situation has not improved yet. We are thus importing eggs produced in battery cages that have already been banned in the EU.

Fixing future trade

That is why Eurogroup for Animals has drafted model provisions that could be used in all future EU Free Trade Agreements. Animal welfare being a cross-cutting issue, it would be better addressed in a stand-alone chapter, like small and medium-sized enterprises and gender. That would not prevent inserting references to the animal welfare chapter in other relevant parts of the agreement.

The key concepts on which those model provisions rest are the following: very strong cooperation mechanisms to genuinely improve the situation on the ground; the protection of the right to regulate to avoid any chilling effect on new legislation; and conditional liberalisation based on equivalence of standards. The provisions also include wording on trade and sustainable development, calling for the EU to recognise the strong connection between animal welfare and sustainable development.

At the launch event in the European Parliament on 18 October, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström described the model provisions as “a very interesting proposal to [better address animal welfare in EU trade policy].”

Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D member of the International Trade Committee) underlined how crucial Eurogroup for Animals’ efforts were, remarking that “it is high time that animal welfare is given proper attention in EU trade policy”.

Commissioner Malmström also reacted positively to the idea of conditional liberalisation based on equivalence of standards, and indicated that this could be investigated for specific products.

As a result, Eurogroup for Animals calls on the European Commission to investigate the possibilities to apply the model provisions in the ongoing negotiations, notably with Mercosur, and upcoming ones, especially with Australia and New Zealand – all of them large meat exporters to the EU.

For the sake of the animals, and for global sustainable development, there is no time to lose.