Ethical concerns beyond the border: how European animal welfare policies reach Brazil

Ethical concerns beyond the border: how European animal welfare policies reach Brazil C. Maciel 1 and B. Bock 2 1 Wageningen University, Environmental Policy Group and Law and Governance Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands; 2 Wageningen University, Rural Sociology Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, the Netherlands; carolina.maciel@wur.nl Abstract To accommodate the growing ethical concern regarding the way farm animals are treated, a comprehensive body of legislation has been developed to ensure the welfare of animals from birth to slaughter. Alongside governmental measures, the last decades have witnessed a proliferation of voluntary animal welfare standards developed by supermarkets and non-governmental organisations. Thus, within the European context, significant advancement has been reached in the implementation of good animal practices. But how to address ethical consideration in countries that export meat to Europe? Ethical demands for foreigner food production are most likely to revolve into an international trade conflict as it is regarded as an extra jurisdictional measure. By looking at the relation between European and Brazilian actors in the field of animal welfare policies, this article seeks to capture the transnational governance of animal welfare. Drawn upon the literature of policy transfer and stakeholders interview in Brazil and Europe, this study identified three main channels through which European animal welfare policies and practices reach farms in Brazil. Accordingly with the set of actors, instruments and procedural differences underlying the functioning of each channel, we have named them as: governmental, commercial and civil. We observed that in the context of EU-Brazil relation, ethical claims for animal welfare prospered mostly through commercial and civil channels. The outperformance of governmental channels by nongovernmental channels indicates a shift from hard transfer to soft transfer in cross-border animal welfare dialogue. The finding that measures developed by governmental actors are surpassed by private measures poses questions from the perspective of the international trade regulation. Will the current welfare governance evolve into a shift from hard trade barrier to soft trade barriers? And if so, how does it relate to the multilateral trade system since private standards and animal welfare are both controversial topics for Members of the World Trade Organisation? Keywords: policy transfer, governance shift, soft barriers Introduction Over the last 40 years, a comprehensive governance structure has been put in place to address the growing concern for the welfare of farmed animals. Consequently, animal welfare has become one of the most rapidly expanding policy areas in Europe, with public and private rules and standards regulating rearing, transport and slaughter practices for a range of species. Still, European regulation alone is insufficient to address the new questions that result from the increasing globalisation of animal production and trade and as a result of which many animal products reach European consumers that do not comply with the strict regulation that European producers have to meet. Having European products sold alongside foreign products (which might have been produced under lower welfare conditions) is considered not only detrimental for the competition of producers in European Union (EU) but also a potential source of confusion and discouragement for European consumers and producers. Therefore, European Members of Parliament, farmers organization (Copa-Cogeca, 2010) and the European non- governmental organization of animal protection (Eurogroup, 2000) stressed the need for applying equivalent animal welfare regulations to imported products. This is, however, quite a difficult task that H. Röcklinsberg and P. Sandin (eds.), The ethics of c onsumption: The citizen, the market and the law, DOI 10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_57, Wageningen Academic Publishers 2013 361

Section 10 most likely conflicts with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Animal welfare measures are highly controversial within the WTO. While some WTO-Members, like the EU, consider animal welfare as a legitimate non-trade concern that should be globally addressed in a consistent manner within the WTO (EC, 2000), other Members see it as a disguised restriction to trade. Since achieving consensus through the WTO may still take a long time due to ethical, cultural, economic and political divergences, it is important to consider which other avenues there may be to take care of global farm animal welfare concerns (EC, 2002). Within Europe, market-based initiatives play an increasingly important role in meeting consumers concerns about the treatment of farm animals (e.g. Veissier et al., 2008; Maciel and Bock, unpublished data). So far, however, little is known about the outreach of such private regulation to non-european countries and their role in the transnational governance of animal welfare. This article looks at the relation between European Union and Brazil in order to better understand how animal welfare is governed transnationally. The objective is to identify how European animal welfare practices and policies reach one of the most important EU trading partners: Brazil. The next section presents the research design and methods. We then present a summary of our findings followed by a brief discussion. Study design and methods The objective of this study is to explore the different ways in which European private and public animal welfare policies and practices reach out and affect the incorporation of animal welfare policies and practices in Brazilian institutions. The study followed a qualitative design that combined semistructured interviews with relevant experts in the field of livestock production and international trade, with the review of key documents. Interviews were conducted in Brazil during January to April 2012 with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Ministry of Foreigner Relation, Agricultural Research Federal Institute, supermarkets, farmer s trade union, slaughter houses, certification organisms and academics. In Europe, interviews took place during September to December 2012 with representatives of European Commission, food retailer s outlets and associations, non-governmental organisations for animal protection, association of European farmers and meat industry. The data were analysed with the help of policy transfer theory. In short, policy transfer is defined as the processes through which knowledge of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system are used for the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system (Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996). Summary of findings The data collected reveals that European animal welfare policies and practices reach Brazil in different ways under the influence of different actors and through the employment of different instruments. In analogy to the three subsystem of governance (state, market and civil society), we clustered the activity of transference in three channels depending on whether governmental, commercial or civil actors take the lead in introducing European policies and practices into Brazilian territory. We refer to the channels as: governmental, commercial and civil. Governmental At the governmental level, Europe and Brazil maintain relations at three levels: (1) bilateral; (2) regional (in negotiations such as the free trade agreement between EU-Mercosur); and (3) multilateral (in forums such WTO). The bilateral procedure of establishment approval seems to account for the greatest transfer of policy and practices from European Union to Brazil. According to article 11 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, for a food products of animal origin to enter the European 362 The ethics of consumption

Animal welfare Union market the corresponding foreigner establishment needs to be approved by the European Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). Thus, Brazilian farmers and slaughterhouses aiming to export to EU s market need to fulfil the requirements of the EU legislation regarding animal health and food safety. In doing so, some European animal welfare practices are transfer to Brazil. Many of the respondents referred, for instance, to regulation EC n. 1099/2009 on slaughter as an illustration of European animal welfare requirements that entered the Brazilian production meat chain. In order to Brazilian establishments to obtain EU pre-export approval they needed to adapt their production methods to the European regulation and change the electrical parameters for the stunning water bath of poultry as well as employ an animal welfare officer. Another situation for policy transfer at the bilateral level came with the recent memorandum of understanding for technical cooperation in the area of animal welfare signed by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) and the Directorate General of Health and Consumers of the European Commission (DGSANCO). With this memorandum the parties agreed to exchange scientific knowledge and technical information on the welfare of farm animals. The negotiations at the regional and multilateral level have, in contrast, been less expressive for policy transfer. Since 1995 EU is negotiating a trade agreement with the South American trade bloc Mercosur (whose members are Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela and Uruguay). Nine negotiation rounds have taken place (the last one from 22 to 26 October 2012) but no agreement has been reached yet. Animal welfare is one among the issues that hinder the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and Mercosur. While EU argued for animal welfare to be part of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary chapter of the agreement, Mercosur countries insisted on placing it on the Cooperation chapter (interview Brazil and Brussels, 2012). Negotiations are also stalled at multilateral level of the Doha Development Round. Launched in Qatar in November 2001, this latest round of multilateral discussions on trade has not yet seen a consensus among WTO members in major issues such as agriculture, industrial tariffs and non-tariff barriers (like animal welfare). Commercial European food retailers increasingly demand compliance with scheme standards such as GlobalGAP, BRC Food or retailers own codes of practices from both domestic and foreigner suppliers. Such standards specify guidelines for production, transport and slaughter of farmed animal in line with European consumers preferences and EU legislation. Hence, besides the transference that comes within the establishment approval procedures, animal welfare policies and practices reach Brazil through the certification process against European private scheme standards. Observations in the field, moreover, revealed that the influence of European supermarkets in Brazil is not restricted to certification within import operations. The scheme Filière Qualité developed in France in 1991 by Carrefour was brought to Brazil in 1999 under the label Guarantee of Origin. The scheme consists of a set of food standards with labour, safety, environment and animal welfare measures that are above the local legal requirements. The scheme, for instance, introduced an extended loading platform 32 to enhance the protection of animals during transport of cattle (interviews). Similar to the French scheme, Guarantee of Origin requires the identification of suppliers as well as regular audits of producers and slaughterhouses by Carrefour s own veterinary staff. Carrefour collaborates in this scheme with the Braford s producer association and Frigorifico Silva slaughterhouse, which was chosen because of its status as EU approved establishment (interview Brazil, 2012). 32 Consists of a surface of approximately two meter that is placed on vehicles to help the lifting and lowering of animals. The ethics of consumption 363

Section 10 Civil The World Society for Animal Protection (WSPA) is a non-governmental organisation for animal protection founded in 1981 in United Kingdom. Along the years, WSPA has expanded its operation to over 50 countries. In Brazil this organisation started in 1989 and today stands out as the most active civil agent transferring animal welfare policies and practices from Europe to Brazil. Almost all the respondents mentioned the participation of WSPA in Brazilian public and private initiatives of animal-friendly practices. For instance, WSPA is involved in the training of federal inspectors and slaughterhouse s personnel within the National Program of Humane Slaughter, named STEPS. The programme is the outcome of an agreement signed in 2008 between WSPA and the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) with the aim to improve food safety and animal welfare in Brazilian production chain of beef, pork and chicken. The content of the training incorporates provisions regarding animal welfare issues during the loading, unloading, and pre-slaughter handling stipulated by Brazilian law, World Animal Health (OIE) and European Union directives The programme started in April 2009 in the southern part of Brazil (Santa Catarina); by 2011 already more than 1,128 professional from 250 processing plants have received training. In addition, WSPA closely collaborates with producers associations (e.g. UBABEF) and slaughterhouses (e.g. Marfrig) in the development of their own animal welfare programmes. Another European non-organisation involved in initiatives that encourages good animal welfare practices is the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Originally from Switzerland, WWF began to work in Brazil in 1961 with the aim to conserve nature and promote sustainable development. Since 2004, WWF has actively participated in supporting Organic Beef Certification in Pantanal in collaboration with the slaughterhouse JBS-Friboi. EMBRAPA-Pantanal, a governmental research institute, supports the Organic Beef project by developing and disseminating good agricultural and livestock practices that can enhance environmental protection and animal welfare. Discussion of research findings The above presented research findings indicate that animal welfare concepts, policies and practices, flow from Europe to Brazil through governmental, commercial and civil channels. It is, hence, not only public legislation which is transferred; quite on the contrary it seems to be that private regulations reach Brazil most easily through the engagement of commercial and civil actors, which reflects the on-going governance shift in the (inter)national political landscape. The shift to governance is usually described as a move away from the classic command-and-control mode of policy making towards collaborative governing arrangement between public and private actors (Kooiman, 1993). A similar tendency is observed in the transnational governance of animal welfare where one observes that the international transfer of practices and policies is no longer an exclusive activity of governmental representatives of the EU but a shared responsibility of state officials, civil society organisations and multinational business. With the traditional multilateral governmental negotiations taking too much time to advance, as the experience of several WTO rounds has proven, new instruments that doesn t rely on the authority and sanctions of governments are advancing. What we see is that non-governmental actors have been much more successful in transferring quite a range of animal welfare policies and practices. However, the academic debate so far gives little attention to the role of non-state actors in policy transfer. According to Stone (2004) policy transfer literature is still state-centrist. But as the experience in Brazil demonstrates, it is worthwhile to study the new policy transfer arrangements more in detail as the entrance of non-public actors testifies more than just state withdrawal. The increasing reliance on market-based instruments and voluntary agreements for the transfer of policies and practices constitutes not only a shift from hard (legislator and obligatory) modes towards softer voluntary modes of transfer. It also implies a profound change in the kind of trade barriers organising international trade. The shift from hard to soft transfer modes is precipitating the proliferation of private scheme standards that function as soft trade barriers. 364 The ethics of consumption

Animal welfare This is of crucial importance because although of a voluntary legal nature, these standards have become de facto requirements for accessing the European market. Many European trading partners have seen the rise of soft trade barriers such as private standards as protectionist measures that violate the multilateral trade regime. But how these soft trade measures interrelate with WTO legislation is not yet clear. References COPA COGECA (2010). The reaction of European farmers and European agri-cooperatives to EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015. Available at: www.copa-cogeca.be/download.ashx?id=938718. Dolowitz, D.P. and Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature. Political studies 44(2): 343-357. European Commission (2000). European Community proposal for animal welfare and trade in agriculture submitted to WTO committee on agriculture (WTO document n. G/AG/NG/W/19). Available at www.wto.org/english/ tratop_e/agric_e/negs_bkgrnd02_props1_e.htm. European Commission (2002). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on animal welfare legislation on farmed animals in third countries and the implications for the EU. Available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/references/2002_0626_en.pdf. Eurogroup (2000). Discussion paper on farm animal welfare and the WTO. Paper prepared for EC consultation meeting on agriculture. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/april/tradoc_122238.pdf. Kooiman, J. (ed) (1993). Modern governance. Sage, London, UK. Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global network in the transnationalization of policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 545-566. Veissier, I., Butterworth, A, Bock, B. and Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113(4): 279-297. The ethics of consumption 365