Will animal welfare and trade policy makers ever see eye to eye?

By Professor Lisa Collins, University of Leeds, Professor Tony Heron, University of York and Professor Fiona Smith, University of Leeds

This month saw the publication of the Government’s Action Plan For Animal Welfare. With an entire section devoted to international trade and advocacy, the Action Plan adds further pressure on the Department for International Trade to ensure animal animal welfare standards are not forgotten in the ongoing negotiations, not least in the current talks with Australia.

Recognising in law that animals are sentient beings is a landmark step for animal welfare in the UK. Whilst the Animal Welfare Act 2006 recognised that animals feel pain and can suffer, the new Action Plan for Welfare goes beyond this, recognising through a series of bills that animals are sentient — that have the capacity to feel and experience positive and negative emotional states, such as joy, pleasure, pain and fear, and sets out plans for an expert committee to hold ministers accountable for animal welfare in policy.  The Action Plan sets out a wide-ranging suite of reforms that will touch the lives of farm animals, wildlife and pets both on and off the UK’s shores, and bringing animal health and welfare fully into discussions and actions for the 25-year Environment Plan.

The Action Plan, produced by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), claims the Government’s work on animal welfare extends beyond its own borders; it wants to solidify and enhance its position as a global leader in this field by promoting high animal welfare standards across the world. It states “we will build upon the opportunities presented by our departure from the EU to build an independent trading policy, in which animal welfare will play an integral part and which will complement our strong domestic standards. Our manifesto was clear that in all of our trade deals, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.

Interestingly the extent of the integrity of animal welfare in trade policy is about to become evident as the publication of the Action Plan for Animal Welfare coincides with the UK positioning itself to strike a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Australia, which if secured, as is looking very likely, would arguably constitute the UK’s most significant foreign policy achievement since it left the EU. Yet, we know the deal won’t be to everyone’s liking.  As reported by Peter Foster and George Parker of the Financial Times, the terms of the deal have been the subject of a ferocious battle in cabinet between Environment Secretary George Eustice and Trade Secretary Liz Truss over the subject of agricultural tariffs

What’s at stake?

As a net agricultural goods exporter, Australia sees the UK as a significant market opportunity, especially for its beef, lamb, dairy and sugar exports. At the moment, its access to the UK is controlled by tariffs and so-called tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), whereby only limited quantities of certain goods that meet UK food safety, quality and animal welfare standards can be imported tariff free. Australia, however, is pushing to have these tariffs and TRQs abolished. It is also calling for the elimination ‘where possible’ of non-tariff barriers on agricultural trade that it regards as unnecessarily trade restricting. In public, Australia is not being drawn on which of these non-tariff barriers it is targeting, although its opposition to the UK’s hormone beef import ban is well known. 

At the same time, the prospect of direct competition with Australian beef and lamb is probably the last thing the British farming sector needs at the moment. Although the overall economic effects of a free-trade deal with Australia will be modest, it could have disproportionate impacts in Wales and Scotland where upland farmers are already reeling from the trade disruption caused by Brexit and the phasing out of EU subsidies, not to mention Covid. 

Support for Farmers to improve welfare

While farmers look on to see the outcome of trade negotiations and prepare for the resulting ramifications, they may also be required to alter practices in line with Defra’s Animal Welfare Action Plan, which sets out  clear intentions to give more powers to police to tackle livestock worrying, and from 2022, to provide a source of financial support for farmers to improve health and welfare standards through the new Animal Health and Welfare Pathway. This will include support for biosecurity improvements and diagnostic testing to reduce the risk of disease spread and to encourage early diagnosis to ultimately reduce the impacts of infectious disease. The Pathway will also support the implementation of change in production systems for public-supported welfare enhancements. This will be linked to more transparent food labelling, allowing consumers more easily to support the production systems that they value. To be most effective, this needs to be supported with investment in research that demonstrates the welfare potential of different systems, and balances this against the key issues of sustainability, production sufficiency and farmer livelihoods. Turner-esque aesthetics are appealing on packaging, but we need to ensure the reality matches up to the painted idyll.

The Action Plan states that most live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter will be banned and there will be further consideration on transport conditions for animals more broadly. Alongside this, further reforms to welfare at slaughter will be considered. Whilst many animal welfare advocates were hopeful that the Plan would ban the use of cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs, instead it laid out intentions to examine these two housing systems as part of wider reforms. Farrowing crates represent a welfare compromise for the sow, severely restricting her movements for up to five weeks until the piglets have weaned. However, they are typically associated with higher piglet survival than fully open farrowing systems where piglets are at risk of being inadvertently crushed or suffocated by their mother moving around. Alternatives, such as the PigSAFE and other freedom farrowing systems4, allow low piglet mortality whilst permitting the sow freedom of movement and the capacity to better mother her offspring. N8 facilities such as the National Pig Centre at the University of Leeds and the C-DIAL at the University of Newcastle offer opportunities to demonstrate the welfare benefits of such alternative systems.

Whilst improvements through the Plan may reduce the individual risks and associated severity of individual welfare ‘hazards’ on the animals experiencing them, there is a significant gap on the impact of cumulative experience and how best to protect animals from a lifetime of more minor negatives. Whilst there are major issues to contend with, the minor issues tend to be overlooked. The cumulative impacts of repeated, or many different smaller issues is one that needs more investigation and scientists and policy-makers should work together to determine best practice here, for all farmed species. 

Not one commission but two

Alongside pressure to meet promises in the Animal Welfare Action Plan, the UK’s deal with Australia comes hot on the heels of not one but two other separate reviews commissioned by the Government, both of which have produced recommendations for upholding UK food standards. The National Food Strategy (NFS) recommends a mandatory ‘verification’ system for FTA partners’ goods to enter the UK market tariff and quota free. Under this, food imports from the country concerned would need to show that they met a set of ‘core standards’, including but not limited to standards on food safety, animal welfare and the prevention of severe environmental impacts. 

The Trade and Agricultural Commission (TAC), meanwhile, recommends that the Government ‘should work with trading partners within future FTA negotiations to lower tariffs and quotas to zero’, but only where the partner country can demonstrate ‘outcome equivalence’ regarding a ‘core set of standards’ in the areas of climate change, environmental, ethical and animal welfare standards. The TAC report recommends that imports failing to meet an equivalence test should be treated as instances of an ‘unfair’ trade practice and subject to ‘countervailing duties’ (import tariffs beyond those normally applied to imports).

The policy proposals offered by these two commissions are genuinely innovative and worthy of further study. If implemented, they could serve to disentangle the use of tariff and non-tariff measures for the purpose of upholding high standards from their use as economic protectionism. However, they also share three common problems.  The first is that it is far from clear that using tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the ways proposed would be legal under WTO rules, where the issue of trade discrimination on the basis of different production methods is still a highly controversial one

The second is that it is unclear what incentives trade partners like Australia would have for signing up to such a system, since the logical response would surely be that their own farming systems may be different, but they are hardly unfair.

Third, and most importantly, it is ultimately up to the Government to decide which, if any, of these recommendations it wishes to take up and enshrine in its FTAs. This, after all, remains the central political problem raised by the Australian deal – how to satisfy the competing interests of different stakeholders and who to blame when things go wrong.

With the Australia deal imminent, we get to see for the first time how, in practical terms, the Government reconciles the tension between its simultaneous commitment to upholding UK food and animal welfare standards while liberalising trade through bilateral free-trade agreements.

Share this blog!

Understanding the economic impacts of animal diseases

By Professor Jonathan Rushton, N8 AgriFood Chair at the University of Liverpool and Programme Director of the Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme.

With continuing population growth and rising demand for food, livestock and aquaculture are integral to improving food and nutrition security, health, and livelihoods.

These positive contributions are being undermined, however, by the negative effects of livestock production and consumption on society and the environment—e.g., production of greenhouse gases, environmental degradation, emergence of zoonotic diseases, and antimicrobial resistance. Furthermore, excessive consumption of some livestock products is linked to risk of non-communicable diseases.

There is little evidence available for addressing these concerns through improving livestock production and animal health systems, and no systematic approach to understanding global livestock populations and the resources invested in animals by societies globally. Knowledge of the major constraints on livestock productivity and the means to address them are insufficient, and there is a need for robust assessments of the impact of livestock on food security, disease risks, and climate change. In 2018, the Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme was launched to address these vital issues.

Since that time, we have made progress in developing a comprehensive framework for characterising livestock populations and assessing the value invested in livestock, as well as a system to capture net losses in production and societal expenditure on animal health issues. The GBADs programme recognises that many animal health problems are related to production and nutrition issues that need to be resolved in a socioeconomic context.

An important organisational development has been the integration of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) within the leadership of the GBADs programme. This role acts upon OIE’s 2016 resolution to improve understanding of the economic impacts of animal diseases and gives an important institutional platform to the GBADs programme. Through existing OIE partnerships, GBADs will strengthen links with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, WHO, and the International Livestock Research Institute.

GBADs will focus initially on making global estimates of animal disease burdens; over time, this will be strengthened with in-depth country, disease, and sector-level studies. The GBADs programme now has strong engagement with research groups in Australia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, and the UK and is developing national case studies in those locations. The team has engaged with multinational companies involved in pharmaceuticals, livestock production, and data management in livestock systems.

The GBADs programme has themes that will describe where, how, by whom, and why animals are kept in populations and production systems. This theme will generate and integrate information on the biomass contained in livestock populations, and estimate the level of investment in animals and the infrastructure used to manage them. Levels of production will be compared with a state with no disease and perfect health and nutrition to estimate an Animal Health Loss Envelope (AHLE). Adapting methodology from the Global Burden of Disease Study, the AHLE will then be attributed to specific causes through animal health ontology and attribution. The AHLE will account for loss and expenditure at farm level, and will calculate the impacts of lost animal health in the wider economy and trade and on human health. To support the latter, we will collaborate closely with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and WHO. The GBADs programme’s themes will be supported by engagement with governments, the private sector, and non-governmental organisations. Additionally, education programmes will be established that provide a global knowledge framework to assess the effects of animal disease and health problems in livestock. In this way, GBADs will provide information to public and private sector decision makers, adding value to their management of animal health and welfare.

Climate change and pandemic disease are two of the major threats facing humanity, threats with which livestock are closely entwined. The GBADs programme team is committed to a better understanding of our livestock systems and of their positive and negative impacts on society and the environment locally, globally, and nationally. There is an urgent need to develop intelligence systems able to improve decision making for people managing livestock to limit the environmental consequences and public health risks related to livestock production and consumption, while also helping people across the world access high-quality protein and micronutrients, produced in a humane way.

This blog is an extract of editorial piece Professor Rushton co-authored for The Lancet, regarding the roll-out of the GBADs programme. The full editorial can be found here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00189-6/fulltext

More information regarding GBADs can be found here https://animalhealthmetrics.org/

Share this blog!

Procuring food for the future

By Dr Neil Boyle, Research Fellow, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds

Public food procurement is increasingly promoted at a national and local level as an instrument through which a better UK food system can be advanced.

Due to their size and purchasing power, large public sector bodies or so called ‘anchor institutions’ – such as hospitals, schools and prisons – have the potential to wield significant influence on the local food systems in which they are embedded.

Public procurement practice that incorporates sustainability principles can make a strategic contribution to local food systems by prioritising food that is produced, processed, distributed and disposed of in ways that contribute to local economies and livelihoods, provide social benefits, are protective of flora and fauna, and maximise usage and minimises waste.

N8 AgriFood researchers at the University of Leeds (Diane Ryland and Sonja Woodcock) and Lancaster University (Dr Rachel Marshall and Dr Rebecca Whittle) have collaborated with practitioners from their local sustainable food partnerships (Lucy Antal from FeedBack and Anna Clayton from FoodFutures: North Lancashire’s Sustainable Food Partnership) to examine the procurement practices of anchor institutions in Leeds and Lancaster from a sustainability perspective.

We conducted interviews with food procurement managers for schools, hospitals and university catering to gain insight into how sustainability is being incorporated into practice. Alongside this, researchers from the School of Law at the University of Leeds conducted an analysis of current UK and EU food procurement law to map out the existing legislative landscape, and glimpse over the parapet at the post EU exit terrain.

We found examples of positive steps towards the use of public procurement to promote sustainable local food systems in both cities. The concept of social value – the additional value to the wider community created by procurement activity – is being incorporated into practice.

For example, working proactively with local suppliers to meet procurement contracts directly benefits the local economy in terms of investment and employment. Procuring local, seasonal food reduces environmental impact by cutting ‘food miles’. Food is distributed locally, to feed school children for example, ensuring the availability of food of high nutritional quality for the local population.

However, whilst there is a convergence of interest in using procurement as a force to drive positive change, significant barriers restrict the abilities of institutions to procure food with sustainability in mind. Firstly, there is very little regulatory steer on sustainability in procurement practice. Neither UK nor EU procurement law actively mandates sustainability.

In the absence of clear regulatory directives on sustainability, small-scale sustainable food suppliers find it difficult to engage with and compete for tenders. Cost and capacity remains a major issue for small-scale producers who struggle to compete with economies of scale. Dynamic procurement systems as being piloted by Crown Commercial Services show promise of an innovative route by which small suppliers can access procurement contracts.

Another challenge is matching the values and ambition of a sustainable procurement strategy to the values of the businesses procured from. For instance, greater transparency is needed around the sustainability criteria and food miles associated with large scale distributors.

It is clear that more action is needed if the sustainability promoting potential of anchor institutions is to be fully realised. Procurement has an important role to play in supporting a more local, sustainable and resilient UK food system. As the UK leaves the EU, there is an opportunity to better enshrine principles of sustainability into public procurement law to promote social and economic value, as well as prioritise the sustainability of agricultural systems and landscapes on which we depend.

A full list of actions we consider necessary to promote sustainable procurement practice in anchor institutions can be found in our full report, which will be published in October 2020. Find out more about the review of procurement regulation at both EU and national level.

Share this blog!