1. Thierry de l’Escaille – ELO Secretary General
Development Support, Animal Welfare, Unfair Competition
The European Farmers’ Perspective
Investment of Public Funds in Intensive Animal Production
Thierry de l’Escaille – ELO Secretary General
European Parliament,

2. The European Landowners’ Organization represents land owners and land managers in 26 European countries through 56 national organizations
Livestock farmers form part of our membership
The ELO is committed to;
An intergenerational perspective;
Sustainable and intensive agriculture;
Promoting best practice in the livestock sector;
Adhering to European and national directives and legislation;
Finding a balance between profitable agriculture and animal welfare.

3. EU vs. Non-EU producers
European livestock farmers are currently experiencing a mix of issues, key among which is the increasing costs laid down through animal welfare requirements.
While the European consumers has become more vocal in its demand for free-range poultry and pork products, the food industry is still looking for the best cost price.
The costs associated with EU welfare standards do not allow for fair competition against intensive livestock production, financed by IFC and EBRD, in third countries.

4. EU vs. Non-EU producers
In the example of eggs, we can clearly see that EU directives and other factors are driving up the costs of egg production:

5. Housing Costs are around 40% higher in the EU for egg layers.
EU vs. Non-EU producers
Housing Costs are around 40% higher in the EU for egg layers.

6. National Differences: the Dutch case
Battery cages are illegal through European legislation
However, due to trade treaties between the Ukraine and the Netherlands, the Ukraine does not need to abide by these standards
Consequently – cost prices are lower

7. National Differences: the Dutch case
There are inter-European legislative differences as well:
Beak cutting will be outlawed in the Netherlands in 2018, but this is not so in Belgium.
German demands on animal welfare are different again
The southern European states are perceived to have lower standards

8. National Differences: The Austrian Case
Statutes, laws, and directives regarding pork welfare in Austria

9. National Differences: The Austrian Case
One our Austrian members has built new group housing that goes beyond the requirements of the EC.
Built with advice from Four Paws, experts (including prof. Troxler, University of Vienna), and livestock building experts
Group housing for sows
Costs for new housing: euro
Cost per sow: 1.500

10. The European Landowners
The ELO strongly believes in a competitive and vibrant agricultural sector;
Our members are nearly all commercial farmers
We believe in the long-term perspective and working with European regulation to ensure that it is sensible
We encourage European development support outside the EU to ensure that farmers can feed the world.

11. The European Landowners
However,
Competition must be open and fair;
Investment support that directs EU funds towards projects that do not adhere to European norms is unfair competition
- European farm animal welfare standards should be taken up by the IFC and IBRD as a mandatory part of support packages

12. Other Issues Facing Livestock Farmers
- Retailer dominance of the food supply chain;
- Ineffective Government action;
- No clear labeling policy;
- Red tape stifling innovation and expansion;
- Harmful effects on the environment due to distance between producers and processors.

13. Conclusion
If non-EU farmers do not have to follow EU animal welfare standards, then competition is unfair.

14. Recommendations
Change the current voluntary standards set by IFC and IBRD to mandatory for countries exporting to the EU and deny loans or extensions if these conditions are not met\;
For the European livestock sector:
Create an independent ombudsman for the food chain to protect producers and suppliers;
Introducing a clearer labeling system so consumers know what they are buying;
Promoting the EU system that protects the quality of regional and local foods;
Better advice and support for rural business hampered by red tape;
Greater communication between regulator and regulated.