Dairy cattle welfare - the relative effect of legislation, industry standards and labelled niche production in five European countries.

The only common European Union (EU) legislation set up specifically to ensure the welfare of dairy cattle is for calves. As a consequence, there is wide diversity in how dairy cattle welfare is ensured in EU countries. A few countries have legal requirements for dairy cattle welfare, while in others, it is left to industry standards or niche production requirements, typically linked to various premium labels. In this paper, we compared animal welfare provisions in dairy cattle production across five countries with different combinations of legislative and other approaches: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Firstly, we aimed to map the diversity of animal welfare initiatives. Secondly, we used the Benchmark method of expert valuations and weightings of the relative importance of individual welfare provisions. We found that Denmark and Sweden have the highest level of dairy cattle welfare provisions as measured by the Benchmark method, partly due to high legislative welfare requirements, followed by the United Kingdom, which has an extensive industry standard with very high uptake. Germany and the Netherlands, on the other hand, have lower levels of documented welfare provisions, and correspondingly a Benchmark score closer to a baseline defined by legal requirements at EU level. We also found differences in what elements of animal welfare were focussed on. Some initiatives emphasised fulfilling the social needs of cattle, while others focused more on space and freedom to move. Also, the countries with the highest Benchmark score had a relatively high level of production of organic and other specialty dairy products. We found the effect of national legislation or ambitious industry standards on dairy cattle welfare to be much larger than previous studies have found in either pigs or poultry. At a time when the EU is considering stepping up its efforts to improve animal welfare in terms of common minimum standards, the results of this study could have important policy implications. The diversity in the level of dairy cattle welfare standards found across countries may speak in favour of having shared minimum standards, both at EU level and globally. However, even among countries with a similar Benchmark score, we found a difference in the kinds of welfare provisions at work, which may make full harmonisation of standards more challenging.

Characterising sustainability certification standards in dairy production.

Despite the increasing use of private certification standards to meet the demand for sustainable dairy production, research into these standards is lacking. In this paper, we characterised sustainability certification standards currently used in dairy production. A literature search for dairy sustainability initiatives revealed one hundred-and-sixteen possible standards. In total, 19 of these were determined to qualify as 'sustainability certification standards' based on our selection criteria and were available in English or Dutch language. The standards were analysed using publicly available documents of the most recent version. The analysis included three key components: (i) general characteristics of the standard (such as the geographic origin, year founded, most recent updates), (ii) a thematic coverage analysis of the sustainability themes covered in each standard and (iii) evaluation of the inherent trade-offs within each standard utilising the opposing aspects of credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement (the 'devil's triangle'). The comparison of general characteristics of the 19 standards revealed a wide variation in the characteristics of standards such as organisation type (i.e. nongovernmental organisations, individual dairy processor or other dairy sector actors), the number of indicators included, but also in the sustainability themes they cover, and how they balance the credibility, accessibility, and continuous improvement. The environmental pillar is most frequently and comprehensively addressed, whereas the economic pillar is least frequently and least comprehensively addressed. The 'devil's triangle' trade-off analysis revealed that credibility and accessibility, from the standard's perspective, are often transparently described and assured within the documents of standards. In contrast, continuous improvement is infrequently focused upon by standards. Overall, the variability in standards may allow farmers to choose a standard that aligns with his/her conviction or stage of development but might also create consumer or farmer mistrust in standards.