30 January 2008 - Slovenia and Malta have approved the new EU Lisbon treaty by a large majority. Early Tuesday evening (29 January), Slovenia, which holds the EU presidency, became the second member state to ratify the new EU treaty in its national parliament, following Hungary which adopted it in late December.

Slovenia

Out of 90 MPs, 74 voted for the treaty and only 6 members of a small right-wing Slovene National Party voted against after previously tabling a proposal for a referendum on the issue, rejected by other parliamentarians.

Prime Minister Jansa said he expected at least 20 of the 27 EU member states to ratify the treaty by the end of June and others to do so by the end of the year, stressing that one of Slovenia's jobs as EU presidency country was to "carefully monitor ratification procedures."

Malta

A little while later on Tuesday, Malta became the third country to give the go-ahead to the document, with its parliament voting unanimously to approve a motion of ratification put by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi. Both government and opposition parties supported the treaty.

"I find it particularly symbolic that each of the first three countries to approve the new Treaty are member states that joined the European Union in 2004," European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said in reaction to votes.

He added, "This shows that enlargement is an inspiration and impetus for the future development of European integration."

Slovakia's parliamentary battle

Meanwhile, in Slovakia, a vote on ratification is scheduled for early today (30 January), following a heated confrontation between the ruling coalition parties, led by centre-left Prime Minister Robert Fico and the centre-right opposition on Tuesday.

Slovakia previously ratified the European Constitution by a huge majority. However, some centre-right MPs are planning to leave the chamber during the ratification vote in protest against an unrelated press bill introduced by the government.

29 January 2008 - Cork County Councillor Alan Coleman and Cork County Mayor Tom Sheehan are in Brussels today to join mayors from across Europe in pledging to cut CO2 emissions. As part of EU Sustainable Energy Week, Cork is supporting the so-called Covenant of Mayors which will consist of a formal commitment by the mayors and representatives of almost 100 European cities to go beyond the EU targets in reducing CO2 emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy actions.

The idea for the proposed Covenant of Mayors came from Energie-Cités, an association of European local authorities for the promotion of local sustainable energy policies. Cllr Coleman is on the Energie-Cités board of directors. The network of 500 towns and cities will hold its annual conference in Cork in April of this year.

Speaking at the launch of the Covenant today Cllr Coleman said, "This is part of Cork County Council's ongoing commitment to energy efficiency and climate change. Our HQ – Cork County Hall – is an excellent example of energy efficient technology. As a director of Energie-Cités, I'm delighted at Cork's involvement in this agreement and I would hope that we could go beyond the target of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020".

The Covenant of Mayors will focus on concrete projects and measurable results. The cities and regions who have signed up to the agreement will formally commit to reduce their CO2 emission more than 20% by 2020. In order to do so, they will develop Sustainable Energy Action Plans.

Almost 100 European cities, including 15 capitals, have expressed their early interest in the Covenant. Cllr Coleman is joining elected representatives from London, Helsinki, Riga, Berlin, Ljubljana, Warsaw, Paris and other cities at today's event, together with EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs and the President of the Committee of the Regions Michel Delebarre.

 

[Ladies and gentlemen],

It's nice to be back in Ireland, and a pleasure to join you for your annual general meeting.

In the farming world, we're not exactly short of things to talk about at the moment.

One of my favourite topics just now is, of course, the CAP Health Check.

A number of people were surprised that I started dropping hints about what would be in the Health Check several months before the Commission launched its "communication" last November.

Now I can give you the reason - and it's all about Ireland.

Someone in Brussels who is a big fan of Ireland and the Irish once told me a proverb. According to that proverb:

"An Englishman thinks while seated. A Frenchman thinks standing. An American thinks while walking around. And an Irishman thinks afterwards!"

But no-one could tell me how long afterwards. So I thought that, if I started talking about the Health Check in 2006, then by November 2007 Irish farmers would have something to say in reply!

But of course, in reality, I know that you're right on top of what's going on in agricultural policy, and I'm looking forward to hearing your comments today.

Also, I know you have a number of concerns about the Health Check. So in the next few minutes, rather than run through the Health Check in detail, I want to pick up on one or two points of particular relevance.

Let me start with the Single Payment Scheme.

As you know, there's a section in the Health Check communication about flattening out the single farm payments that different farmers receive – in other words, reducing the differences between these payments. And I know that this has set a few alarm bells ringing in Ireland.

Let me reassure you: this section of the Health Check is nothing to worry about. If you still want the "historical" model of the Single Payment Scheme, you can still have the historical model.

I personally think there's a strong case for reducing the variations between individual payments. I think that, in the years to come, the public will find it hard to understand why Farmer X is paid more each year than Farmer Y just because of production decisions that he took 10 years earlier – or perhaps, because of decisions taken by his predecessor!

This is why I propose to give Member States the option of flattening out payment levels. But we are talking about an "option" here. I don't want to impose change on countries which feel that their system is working well.

I know you also still have concerns about cross-compliance.

As you know, changes to the system are already underway.

I have to make it clear that we are absolutely not going to unpick the principles of cross-compliance. We need cross-compliance in order to link direct payments to things that the public wants – and therefore, in order to justify those payments.

But new systems often experience teething troubles, and we've seen that with cross-compliance. The changes adopted by the Commission last December and by the Council last week with regard to rules on control and sanctions should lighten the burden on farmers and national administrations – but without hampering the system's effectiveness.

Let's be clear that these changes are not window-dressing: they're real changes. A good example is the introduction of a de minimis penalty level of € 100, beneath which the penalty won't actually be charged. Other important changes are the concept of "minor infringements" which won't lead to a fine at all, and the abolition of the 10-month rule.

The work on cross-compliance is ongoing within the Health Check – especially on the scope of application. We have to concentrate on the fundamental obligations and remove everything that does not pass this test.

We might also have to add a new standard if something important was left out back in 2003. This could for instance be the case with regard to water management.

I would also like to give some reassurance about plans for agricultural market instruments.

There seems to be a fear in some parts of the European Union that the Health Check is about "liberalisation without rules", or something of the sort.

This is absolutely not true. Within the Health Check, we're not trying to choose between black and white. Our options aren't limited to heavy-handed regulation of markets on the one hand, or free-for-all liberalisation on the other hand.

We're looking for pragmatic, balanced solutions that work in the real world.

Certainly, I want to "liberalise" where farmers who want to raise production and profits find needless obstacles in their way. The milk quota system would be a good example of this.

On the other hand, this is not liberalisation without rules or boundaries.

In the case of milk quotas, for example, I want to take the right steps to give the sector a "soft landing" when the quota system runs out in 2015.

Ireland and other Member States recently made it very clear that their farmers needed more milk quota as soon as possible so that they wouldn't miss the boat as market opportunities open up around the world. This is why I proposed an increase of 2 per cent for this year.

Within the Health Check, we will very probably propose further increases before 2015 – enough to help meet demand, at a rate that will not undermine the market's stability.

In parallel with this, if there are economically fragile areas which really depend on milk production, I want to help them survive in a world without milk quotas – whether through rural development policy, or possibly measures under "Article 69", which would allows to top-slice the direct payments by a certain percentage and the money could then be used for the dairy sector.

The main point about our market tools like intervention, export refunds or aid for private storage is that they should serve a useful purpose, not simply slow down farmers' ability to respond to market signals.

For me, that useful purpose is to act as a genuine safety net. They should not set market prices, and we should not have to clear out the storehouses with subsidised sales to make the system work.

What do I mean when I talk about "safety nets"? I mean that, in the case of a real market crisis, our market tools prevent farmers from being forced out of production and losing their livelihood. This is what I want to achieve in the Health Check.

Related to the topic of market tools is the issue of managing risks and crises.

It's important to remember that lots of different tools exist in the European Union to help farmers deal with life's many uncertainties.

Member States have decided very clearly that, if more is done to help at the level of the European Union, this should not interfere with what Member States are already doing, and it should not be seen by the WTO as distorting trade.

However, it seems that what is available related to the climate and animal health is not complete. So I would like to set a new framework for such measures so that Member States can better deal with damage to harvests, and animal disease.

I don't want to say too much today about the other challenges mentioned in the Health Check communication: fighting climate change, managing water, making the most of bioenergy, and preserving biodiversity.

But as you're aware, last week the Commission proposed a large package of measures related to climate change, and European agriculture can't ignore the issue. We have already curbed greenhouse gas emissions from farming – these now account for 9 per cent of the European total – but we will have to go further.

Rural development can help farmers to meet new obligations in this area, and to face the other challenges which I've just mentioned.

This is the main reason why we desperately need more money in the rural development budget. This is why I have proposed an increase in the rate of compulsory modulation.

I know that this idea is not especially popular over here. But I would ask you to bear four points in mind:

First, a healthy slice of the money in the rural development budget is spent directly on farming.

Secondly, even the funding not spent directly on agriculture benefits farmers indirectly if it strengthens the rural communities in which farming is embedded.

Thirdly, moving funding to rural development means that more money is spent on the countryside overall, because of co-financing. So every Euro paid by the EU would be added by another Euro from the national budget.

And fourthly, European citizens expect us to have a strong rural development policy. They connect very clearly with its goals.

Overall, I think the case for moderately increasing modulation is strong.

Of course, while we have all these discussions about domestic policy on the boil, we're still working hard to get an agreement in the Doha Round.

In the next few days, the chairman of the agricultural negotiations should put a new draft outline agreement for agriculture on the table.

I don't know what's on its way. But I will say this. Any deal which could emerge in the weeks ahead must be comprehensive and cover issues of clear interest to the European Union. That means that the following issues need to be adequately addressed within the agricultural package:

our limited flexibility in market access, notably as far as the treatment of sensitive products is concerned to which clearly belongs the beef;

our offensive interest in domestic support, notably as regards the disciplines for US agricultural support;

full parallelism in the export competition pillar; and

sufficient protection of our geographical indications (GIs).

In this context I want to repeat what I have said many times before: for the agricultural negotiations it is absolutely clear that the CAP reform 2003 is Europe's important contribution to the Doha Development Agenda and marks the limits for its negotiating brief in the WTO round. The reform gives us a margin of manoeuvre – but we can use this only if our WTO partners come up with equivalent concessions in agriculture and elsewhere.

The Doha Round is not only an agricultural round! The ambition in agriculture must be fully matched in the other areas of the negotiations, notably non-agricultural market access, services and rules.

Therefore, once we get back to discussions at ministerial level, there will be a balanced deal, or there will be no deal. The European Union must come away from the table with gains in areas of interest to us. We cannot and will not be the sole banker in this WTO round!

At the same time, I know you're keeping a very wary eye on an issue of bilateral trade: beef exports from Brazil to the European Union.

I've taken your concerns about Brazilian beef very seriously; and I've made this clear to my colleague Commissioner Kyprianou, responsible for food safety.

The Brazilians must play fair.

If they want to export beef to us, that beef must meet the agreed standards - standards which Europeans demand.

So on the basis of the findings of last November's inspections, we have taken action.

But we also have to play fair.

Our response must be in proportion to the problem. We can't impose a total ban on Brazilian beef unless that's the only viable solution.

Our response thus far meets that criterion of being in proportion. And make no mistake: the new rules which we have set down are demanding. We expect that, out of the 10 000 holdings which are currently eligible to export to us, only 3%, which means about 300 holdings, will initially make the grade under the new rules.

In any case, we will keep reviewing the situation to make sure that we've solved the problem. If our chosen solution fails, we will find a better solution, which ultimately could be a total ban. Because our animal health and food safety standards are non-negotiable.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think I've said enough for the moment.

As always, I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.

As I said earlier: according to that proverb I mentioned, Irishmen do their thinking "afterwards". But after listening to me today, don't wait too long to tell me what you think about the Health Check!

It would be nice to get the Health Check wrapped up this year, so if you leave it very late to give me your thoughts, you'll miss the party.

This would be a shame, because who knows better than an Irishman how to get a party going?!

Thank you for listening.

 

These measures will dramatically increase the use of renewable energy in each country and set legally enforceable targets for governments to achieve them. All major CO2 emitters will be given an incentive to develop clean production technologies through a thorough reform of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that will impose an EU-wide cap on emissions.

The package seeks to deliver the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20% and increases to 20% the share of renewable energies in the energy consumption by 2020, as agreed by EU leaders in March 2007. The emissions reduction will be increased to 30% by 2020 when a new global climate change agreement is reached.

Commission President, José Manuel Barroso said, "Responding to the challenge of climate change is the ultimate political test for our generation. Our mission, indeed our duty, is to provide the right policy framework for transformation to an environment friendly European economy and to continue to lead the international action to protect our planet. Our package not only responds to this challenge, but holds the right  answer to the challenge of energy security and is an opportunity that should create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs in Europe. We must grasp that opportunity".

Commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said, "Building on Europe's pioneering emissions trading system, this package demonstrates to our global partners that strong action to fight climate change is compatible with continued economic growth and prosperity. It gives Europe a head start in the race to create a low-carbon global economy that will unleash a wave of innovation and create new jobs in clean technologies. These proposals implement the commitments made by EU leaders last year through a fair share-out of the effort. Now all Member States must make their full contribution."

Commissioner for energy policy, Andris Piebalgs said, "In a time of growing oil prices and climate change concerns, renewable energy sources is an opportunity that we cannot miss. They will help us to reduce our CO2 emissions, strengthen our security of supply and develop jobs and growth in a high tech developing sector. If we do the effort now, Europe will be the leader in the race towards the low carbon economy that the planet so desperately needs"

Commissioner for competition, Neelie Kroes said, “The state aid guidelines are a significant contribution to Energy and Climate Change policy in the Union and to the continuing process of the state aid reform. This is a win-win opportunity for the Member States to finance environmental projects and for economic growth in the EU."

Building on the EU Emission Trading System (ETS), the Commission proposes to strengthen the single, EU-wide carbon market which will include more greenhouse gases (currently only CO2 is included), and involve all major industrial emitters.

The emission allowances put on the market will be reduced year-on-year to allow for emissions covered by the ETS to be reduced by 21% from 2005 levels in 2020.

The power sector – forming the majority of EU emissions – will face full auctioning from the start of the new regime in 2013.

Other industrial sectors, as well as aviation, will step up to full auctioning gradually, although an exception may be made for sectors particularly vulnerable to competition from producers in countries without comparable carbon constraints. In addition, auctions will be open: any EU operator will be able to buy allowances in any Member State.

Revenues resulting from the ETS will accrue to Member States and should be used to help the EU to adjust to an environment friendly economy by supporting innovation in areas such as renewables, carbon capture and storage and R&D. Part of the revenues should also go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change. The Commission estimates that the revenues from the auctioning could amount to €50 billion annually by 2020.

The EU Emissions Trading System, now in its fourth year of operation, has proved an effective instrument to find a market-based solution to provide incentives for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. At present the system covers some 10,000 industrial plants across the EU – including power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills – accounting for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions.

Under the new system over 40% of total emissions will be covered by the ETS. To reduce the administrative burden, industrial plants emitting less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 will not have to participate in the ETS.

In sectors not covered by the ETS such as buildings, transport, agriculture and waste, the EU will reduce emissions to 10% below 2005 levels by 2020.

For each Member State the Commission is proposing a specific target by which it must reduce or, in the case of new Member States, may increase its emissions up to 2020. These changes range from -20% to +20%.

In addition to a properly functioning market for pollutants, all Member States have to urgently start changing the structure of their energy consumption. Today, the share of renewable energy in the EU's final energy consumption is at 8.5% which means that an average increase of 11.5% is needed to meet the target of 20% in 2020.

In order to achieve this, the Commission is today proposing individual, legally enforceable targets for each of the Member States. The options for developing renewable energy vary from one Member State to another and lead times for bringing renewable energy on stream are long. Thus it is important for Member States to have a clear vision of where they intend to act. The national action plans to be prepared by Member States will set out how they intend to meet their targets and how progress can be monitored effectively.

As long as the EU's overall target is met, Member States will be allowed to make their contribution by supporting Europe's overall renewables effort, and not necessarily inside their own borders. This would shift investment to where renewables can be produced most efficiently, which could cut €1.8 billion from the price tag for meeting the target.

Today's proposal also addresses the minimum target of 10% for use of biofuels in transport in the EU to be reached by 2020. This is the same for each Member State. Sustainability is essential in implementing this target – the directive includes clear sustainability criteria.

The Commission has also adopted new State aid guidelines on environmental protection which will help Member States to develop a sustainable European climate and energy policy. In comparison with the 2001 guidelines (see IP/00/1519), these new guidelines broaden the scope of aid projects as well as increase the aid intensities. The guidelines set out new conditions for State aid measures to promote environmental protection and strike a very important balance between delivering larger environmental benefits and minimizing distortions of competition.

If aid is not well targeted, it will not deliver environmental results and it risks distorting competition which can lead to lower economic growth in the European Union.

Background

On 10 January 2007 the Commission adopted an energy and climate change package, calling on the Council and European Parliament to approve:

-     an independent EU commitment to achieve a reduction of at least 20% in the emission of greenhouse gases by 2020 compared to 1990 levels and the objective of a 30% reduction by 2020, subject to the conclusion of a comprehensive international climate change agreement;

-     a mandatory EU target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 including a 10% biofuels target.

This strategy was endorsed both by the European Parliament and by EU leaders at the March 2007 European Council. The European Council invited the Commission to come forward with concrete proposals, including how efforts could be shared among Member States to achieve these targets.

This package is the reply to that invitation. It comprises a set of key policy proposals that are closely interlinked. They include:

(1)              a proposal amending the EU Emissions Trading Directive (EU ETS);

(2)              a proposal relating to the sharing of efforts to meet the Community's independent greenhouse gas reduction commitment in sectors not covered by the EU emissions trading system (such as transport, buildings, services, smaller industrial installations, agriculture and waste);

(3)              a proposal for a Directive promoting renewable energy, to help achieve both of the above emissions targets.

Other proposals that are also part of the package include a proposal for a legal framework on carbon capture and storage, a Communication on the demonstration of carbon capture and storage and new guidelines for environmental state aid.

 

Legally binding targets for Member States in 2020

 

	Reduction target in sectors not covered by the EU ETS compared to 2005	Share Renewables in the final energy demand by 2020
AT	-16.0%	34%
BE	-15.0%	13%
BG	20.0%	16%
CY	-5.0%	13%
CZ	9.0%	13%
DK	-20.0%	30%
EE	11.0%	25%
FI	-16.0%	38%
FR	-14.0%	23%
DE	-14.0%	18%
EL	-4.0%	18%
HU	10.0%	13%
IE	-20.0%	16%
IT	-13.0%	17%
LV	17.0%	42%
LT	15.0%	23%
LU	-20.0%	11%
MT	5.0%	10%
NL	-16.0%	14%
PL	14.0%	15%
PT	1.0%	31%
RO	19.0%	24%
SK	13.0%	14%
SI	4.0%	25%
ES	-10.0%	20%
SE	-17.0%	49%
UK	-16.0%	15%

 

The complete press pack and a copy of the Commission's proposals can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/index_en.htm

 

Background

Following an extensive stakeholder consultation, the Commission decided to review the legislation for novel foods, taking into account technological developments, scientific advice and the experience gained through the application of the legislation. An impact assessment on the major changes was carried out by the Commission in 2006. The proposal adopted today addresses shortcomings identified in the existing Regulation, and seeks to create a regulatory framework which will better stimulate innovation in the food sector.

More details

Centralised authorisation procedure

Under the revised legislation, the assessment and authorisation procedure for novel foods will be centralised. This means that, instead of the initial assessment being carried out by a single Member State and then sent to other Member States for comment, the Commission will receive the application for authorisation and the European Food Safety Authority will carry out the scientific assessment on the product. If the product is found to be safe, the Commission will present Member States with a proposal to authorise it in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. This will make the authorisation procedure faster, more uniform and clearer for applicants.

Protection of innovative foods

The proposed Regulation includes data protection provisions for newly developed innovative food. Under the new system, the initial applicant would be given authorisation to market the food for 5 years before it becomes a generic foodstuff that can be produced and marketed by others.

Traditional foods

The Commission's proposal makes provisions for food which has not been consumed before in Europe, but which has a history of safe use elsewhere. For such foodstuffs, the authorisation procedure is simplified. A non-EU country will need to send a notification to the Commission, accompanied by proof of the history of safe use of the food in its territory, instead of a full dossier of data on the foodstuff, as required for newly developed foods. This notification is then submitted to EFSA and Member States, and if no objections are raised, the operator can place the traditional food on the market after five months of the notification.

For more information, see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/novelfood/index_en.htm

11 January 2008 - Earlier today, the European Commission cleared a proposed joint venture on payment card services between Allied Irish Bank (AIB) and the First Data Corporation under the EU Merger Regulation. The joint venture will provide services facilitating the use of payment cards throughout the European Union. It was concluded that the merger would not have any effect on competition within the European Economic Area.

First Data Corporation is an American company and provides electronic commerce and payment services for businesses worldwide. AlB is primarily based in Ireland and provides a diverse range of banking and financial services.

Two types of payment card service are being proposed in this venture: merchant acquiring and payment card processing. A merchant is a vendor of goods or services that accepts a credit or debit card for payment. Merchant acquiring services are mainly recruiting merchants, authorising transactions, obtaining payment from card issuers, settling with merchants, assuming certain liabilities on behalf of merchants and providing merchants with payment terminals.

While the two companies overlap in merchant acquiring, in three Member States (UK, Italy and Netherlands), in none of these markets will their combined share be greater then 15%. Following this venture, the parties' joint share of all merchant acquiring in the EEA would be less than 1%. The Commission does not feel that there is any significant market overlap in payment card processing.

AlB currently accounts for a substantial part of the Irish market for merchant acquiring and First Data Corporation holds a controlling stake in Omnipay, a payment processing platform located in Ireland. The Commission considered competition concerns that could arise from the proposed joint venture and the transaction processing services provided by First Data Corporation in Ireland. It found that Omnipay provides processing services for transactions originating across Europe and not only in Ireland and that the joint venture would face sufficient competition in all European Markets.

Further information on the case will be available at: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/index/m96.html#m_4814 

8 January 2008 - The European Commission has today published a report showing the substantial health and welfare benefit for laying hens in banning conventional battery cages. It details independent studies on the benefits of farming using enriched cages or alternative (free-range or barn) rearing systems for laying hens.

The findings come as hen farmers prepare to implement minimum standards for laying hens by 2012. They also support the ban on conventional battery cages that will be implemented by this date. A key recommendation of this study is a campaign to raise public awareness of the improving quality of the eggs.

Markos Kyprianou, Commissioner for Health, said, "The Commission listened to the demands of EU consumers and has taken concrete action to improve the welfare of laying hens. The report today shows that there is scientific and economic support for the ban on conventional battery cages. We are maintaining the deadline of 2012 for banning conventional battery cages, as there is no reason to postpone it. I urge operators to start phasing out the use of these cages as soon as possible so that there is full compliance with the EU ban by the deadline of 2012."

Banning conventional battery cages

This directive on minimum standards for the protection of laying hens states that, from 1 January 2012, the rearing of laying hens in conventional (known as 'unenriched') cages will be prohibited in the EU. From that date, laying hens will only be allowed to be reared in enriched cages or using alternative systems such as barn or free range. Enriched cages must allow at least 750 cm2 per hen, and contain a nest, litter, perch and clawing-board. Farmers and operators were given a long transitional period to adjust to this measure, and the Commission has been assisting Member States in implementing the Directive.

Animal health and welfare benefits

As new EU legislative measures are based on the latest scientific data and advice, the Commission requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assess the impact that the various housing systems for laying hens have on the health and welfare of these birds. In its Opinion of November 2004 EFSA stated that keeping laying hens in unenriched cages increased the risk of disease, bone breakage, harmful pecking, behavioural problems and mortality. "LayWel", an EU-funded research project, also confirmed that unenriched cages present serious animal welfare problems and that there were clear benefits in changing to enriched caging or alternative systems.

Economic considerations

The Commission report also examines the economic implications of banning unenriched cages. It concludes that the cost of switching to enriched cages could be less than 1 cent per egg. However, the higher animal welfare standards are a valuable selling point for EU producers. While it is extremely difficult for European farmers to compete with their counterparts outside the EU on a cost basis they can compete on quality and better animal welfare standards.

There is clearly a growing market for animal welfare friendly products. Recent Eurobarometer surveys find that consumers are willing to pay more for eggs sourced through animal welfare friendly production systems. Recent research revealed an increase in the consumption of table eggs from non-caged hens in many of the EU Member States, while over the past 2 years the number of free range eggs sold by the top British retailers has almost doubled. The requirement to improve housing systems for laying hens offers EU farmers an advantage over rival producers by meeting a growing ethical consumer demand for eggs.

For more information, and the full report, see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/index_en.htm