Measures to improve animal welfare under the rural development payments were first agreed in 1999 but it was only with the 2003 Mid Term Review of the CAP that seven specific measures were permitted to improve animal welfare. The Agreement in 2005, laid out in Regulation 1698/2005, further defined these programmes, which now include seven specific measures to help improve animal welfare.

The 2007-13 programme has been agreed and includes many more schemes from countries that will promote animal welfare. There are 90 rural development programmes operating in the 27 EU countries. The most popular scheme of the seven which help animal welfare is the farm modernisation scheme which has been taken up by 81 different rural development programmes in 24 countries. However this scheme, as well as the advisory scheme, the assurance scheme and the promotional scheme are not exclusive to animal welfare but could focus on other issues such as the environment or organic farming. Of the two schemes that exclusively make financial awards open to animal welfare benefits, the adaptation to demanding standards measure has been used by three countries with eight different programmes and the animal welfare payments measure has been included by eight countries in 16 programmes.

In 2005 Scotland was the only UK country which had allocated funding streams to specific animal welfare measures. The axis 2 animal welfare measure was implemented in Scotland through the Animal Health and Welfare Management Programme which was offered by the Scottish Executive as one of the options available in their Land Management Contract scheme. The programme gave up to 75% funding for five years to farmers to implement a proactive scheme for the use of treatments, including guidance on the use of veterinary advice and treatment and to improve the use of vaccines and routine medications. It also had voluntary components including to analyse animal health and welfare issues and implement an action plan to measure performance.

The RSPCA with the Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen and Edinburgh University undertook a review of the programme to analyse how effective it was at improving animal welfare. The scheme was very popular, being joined by 20% of all eligible registered farms and covering 24% of the total agricultural land area. It was one of the most popular options in the entire rural development programme with only the programme to encourage farmers to undertake quality assurance schemes having a higher uptake.

A questionnaire was sent out to sample participants and non participants for each of the five livestock classes (lowland/upland sheep, dairy cattle, suckler cows, beef finishing and hill sheep) and to ten veterinary practices who had participated.

More than 70% of the sample size agreed that the programme was a good way to reward farmers for additional animal health and welfare benefits. More than 50% of farmers surveyed also agreed that their perception of animal welfare had improved since being on the scheme, particularly amongst farmers in the highlands and northeast of Scotland.

Farmers also suggested that their general outlook on livestock management had changed since being on the scheme, particularly with placing more emphasis on disease management and prevention. This also emerged when farmers stated that one of the key achievements of the programme was the improved collaboration between them and veterinary practices.

Farmers participating in the scheme who reported a positive impact of the scheme on herd welfare and health stated that it had reduced calf and lamb mortality and lowered lameness and mastitis due to better targeted treatments.

The majority of farmers said that costs from veterinary advice and treatments remained unchanged (at around 8%, in the Highlands and Dumfries regions) to 17% in the northeast and Scottish borders. However a shift had occurred from spending money on disease treatment to spending on vaccines and other routine medications. The control group of farmers not on the scheme reported that the amount spent on disease treatment had increased over the past three years. This seems to confirm that the programme has bought about a closer collaboration between farmer and veterinary practice which had focused the farm on disease prevention rather than disease treatment.

As the scheme has only been running for two years it is too early to assess the quantitative effects on disease and welfare in Scottish cattle and sheep. However the qualitative work shows that the scheme has encouraged a closer link between farmer and veterinarian and both farmers and veterinarians indicate reductions in animal health and welfare problems particularly in areas such as abortions and lameness in sheep. It underlines that measures to improve animal welfare in the CAP play an important role in improving the health and welfare of Europe’s farm animals and to improve their competitiveness on the world market.

A full copy of the report can be obtained from the RSPCA by contacting dbowles@rspca.org.uk