Labelling
system Allocation of costs Coordination with other
audits requirements Coordination with other initiatives to improve AW The cost of the labelling system
is covered in two ways: farmers bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system and of the audits performed to ascertain compliance, whereas there are no fees for participating in the system. Other food operators cover the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system for the relevant production stages and of the audits performed to ascertain compliance, in addition to paying for the licensing costs for the use of the logo. The system covers some of the costs.
Currently, there is no
coordination in place between the audits performed under the system and other auditing requirements
Few collaborations are in place with other national stakeholders (e.g. large retailers, organic stakeholders)
Farmers and other operators bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system and of the audits performed to ascertain
compliance; the system does not hold information on the allocation of costs across the production chain
Without prejudice to the official controls on AW performed by the national authority managing the system, coordination is ensured to the extent which the certification bodies that the system has entrusted with auditing tasks can perform simultaneously audits required by other quality systems
Besides being one of the various governmental initiatives to promote AW, the system is based on a public-private partnership and therefore relies on close collaborations between relevant national stakeholders and research bodies (e.g. Danish Agriculture and Food Council) Farmers bear the costs of
implementing AW requirements set by the system and of the audits performed to ascertain compliance, whereas there are no fees for participating in the system
Coordination works on two different levels:
The system builds on existing basic labelling systems in terms of criteria and requirements;
A clear separation of competences exists between audits performed under the system and other audits (e.g. IKB food safety certification) to avoid duplication of efforts in the AW field
Long-standing cooperation with national academia on AW issues (notably Wageningen University)
Other food operators bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system for the relevant production stage and of the audits performed to ascertain compliance, in addition to paying for the licensing costs for the use of the logo
The system does not require a membership fee; farmers only bear the costs of the audits to ascertain compliance, while the costs of implementing AW requirements are minimal as the system is based on existing EU AW requirements
As audits are carried out by pre-existing independent
certification bodies, their scope generally may cover auditing requirements other than those imposed by the system
The number of rural development and sustainability projects in which the system has taken part is higher than those relevant to AW
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level Labelling
system Allocation of costs Coordination with other
audits requirements Coordination with other initiatives to improve AW Farmers and other operators
bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system and of audits performed to ascertain compliance with the requirements. An annual membership fee also applies to the stakeholder in charge of the product line bearing the Etiquette Bien-Être Animal logo
Whenever possible, the staff of the certification bodies perform simultaneous checks aimed at verifying compliance with other overlapping requirements (e.g.
Label Rouge checks).
Business operators involved in several product lines (e.g.
slaughterhouses) can share their audit results with interested partners (only 1 annual audit required)
Few collaborations/projects in the AW field currently ongoing with research bodies (e.g. LIT Ouest Territoires d’Elevage)
The system holds no information on the precise repartition of costs ensuing from the implementation of AW requirements set by the system across the relevant production chain.
The costs of the implementation of the system for farmers are covered by financial contributions to the system, which are made by retailers, while the costs incurred by slaughterhouses are reflected in the contracts with processors or retailers
The audits performed under the system may be carried out simultaneously as other audits although this is not always possible due to the fact that the former take place without prior warning
There is a regular cooperation in place with quality assurance schemes (e.g. QS in Germany and Beter Leven keurmerk in the Netherlands)
Farmers bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system and of the audits performed to ascertain compliance (based on a pre-established pricing list), in addition to the licensing costs for using KRAV label (fixed fee)
Whenever possible, the staff of the certification bodies perform simultaneously checks aimed at verifying compliance with public and/or private requirements that overlap (e.g. EU organic
legislation and KRAV standard)
A number of collaborations are currently in place with other stakeholders (e.g. national association of slaughterhouses and Swedish Centre for AW) as well as with relevant research bodies (e.g. Ekologisk produktion och konsumtion – EPOK, Swedish University of Agricultural Science).
Other food business operators (e.g. processors) are charged based on a given % of sales value of KRAV labelled products within pre-established
maximum caps
Besides a membership fee, farmers bear the costs of implementing AW requirements set by the system
As the label’s standards are very specific, no coordination exists with other auditing
requirements; nonetheless, other labelling systems may be based on Label Rouge standard
Several collaborations are in place with other national and
international stakeholders (e.g.
AW NGOs) as well as with national research or scientific bodies (e.g.
ITAVI, ANSES).
Costs of audits performed at farm level are financed with membership fees and paid by the Organismes de Défense et de Gestion (ODG)
‘
Allocation of the costs vary in accordance with the production chain with farmers bearing all costs or the largest share
Currently, there is no
coordination in place between the audits performed under the system and other auditing requirements mainly because the former take place without prior warning while other audits tend to follow regular schedules
There is cooperation with other labelling systems present on the national market (e.g. Initiative Tierwohl, Neuland) as well as with the NCAs for specific pilot project
Labelling
system Allocation of costs Coordination with other
audits requirements Coordination with other initiatives to improve AW All costs for participating in the
system are borne by dairies, including those incurred by farmers for implementing AW requirements set by the system
Currently, there is no
coordination in place between the audits performed under the system and other auditing requirements
Few commercial partnerships with leading brands have been established over the last five years
To cover the costs of the system, certification bodies tasked with auditing pay an annual fee for each species they can audit; a fee for the training of their staff on the relevant AW protocols; a fee for each farm certified and the costs of the audits of the owner of the system. The costs of the audits performed by certification bodies are borne by members.
While the system is solely responsible for standard-setting and auditing activities are out of its remit, audits to verify compliance with the label’s standard can take place simultaneously as other audits (especially when covering traceability)
Several collaborations in the AW field currently ongoing with other private and public stakeholders (notably NGOs and NCAs)
Source: Elaborated by Arcadia International based on interviews with the owners/managers of labelling systems covering AW
Transparency
Table 12 shows how the labelling systems under study perform in terms of transparency.
Almost all systems make publicly available their label’s standard. Etiquette Bien-Être Animal is the only system that does not make its standard available on the internet, although this can be requested to the system by any interested party.
A majority of the systems studied (n=8) produce reports that provide details on the activities undertaken and, in some cases, on the market uptake of the system (e.g. Beter Leven keurmerk, Label Rouge). In most cases reports can be consulted on the internet, are subject to wide dissemination and/or can be accessed upon request. In a few cases, publicity to the activities undertaken by the system is made also through the publication of press releases (e.g Tierschutzlabel
“Für mehr Tierschutz”, Initiative Tierwohl). As to the remainder of the systems that do not report on their activities in a regular and/or structured manner, this may be due to the fact that the system has been recently established (e.g. Bienestar Animal avalado por Anda, Etiquette Bien-Être Animal) or work is progressing in this area (e.g. Welfair).
Communication on the future activities to be undertaken by the system – including the review of the label’s standard – takes different forms according to the specific system considered and the targeted audience. In the case of food business operators who are members of the system, newsletters (n=4), email communications (n=3), presential meetings (n=2) and access to reserved areas in the system webpage (n=1) are used. Conversely, external stakeholders can be informed of developments that may impact the functioning and/or the design of the system primarily through open consultations (e.g. when the label’s standard is being reviewed; n=2), press releases or other targeted communication activities (n=2).
Most systems analysed have policies in place aimed at avoiding possible situations of conflict of interest. This is particularly evident in the case of auditing activities: in almost all cases, these are entrusted to third-party auditing organisations (n=10) or to third-party organisations and to the label’s own auditors (this is the case of Bedre dyrevelfærd). As regards the standard-setting process, in a majority cases (n=7) independence is ensured by running wide stakeholder consultations. The legal nature of the system (e.g. a NCA in the case of Bedre dyrevelfærd) or the fact that a separate entity is tasked with standard-setting (e.g. another NGO in the case of Beter Leven keurmerk) is
Implementation of EU legislation on 'on-farm' animal welfare: Potential EU added value from the introduction of animal welfare labelling requirements at EU level considered as an additional guarantee of the independence of the system when the label’s standard is being developed or updated.
Finally, all the systems analysed provide their affiliates/members with the possibility to appeal decisions affecting them (e.g. financial penalties, downgrading, withdrawal of the label etc.). For such circumstances, most systems have either established formal procedures (n=6) or rely on contract law to regulate disputes that may arise (n=3). In the remainder of the systems examined, complaints by members are dealt through informal procedures.
In light of the above, overall, the level of transparency guaranteed by the systems that form part of the sample studied can be considered satisfactory.