2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

APPENDIX 1: MEMBER STATE REPORTSwelfare improvements in shell eggs, they are not so willing to do so in products. This is thought toresult more from a lack of awareness of the use of eggs in products and/or the often smallproportion of egg in final products rather than an active decision not to choose animal welfarefriendly products. However, this issue is now being discussed in the press and the Swedish industrybelieves that this is likely to result in a higher demand for alternative eggs in products.At the producer level the introduction of the ban on traditional cages inevitably led to someproducers ceasing production rather than investing in enriched cages. However, a number of newentrants began production in barn systems 138 and there was no significant shortage of eggs. Packersassisted the change over by voluntarily paying a small premium to enriched cage producers to send aprice signal to those deciding when to time investments. A major retailer (Ica, with around 40% ofthe Swedish retail market) also helped by making it clear that they would cease to stock eggsproduced in traditional cages from a certain date.The Swedish experience therefore suggests that this change in production system can be made andthat once producers have experience of enriched cages the running costs are not likely to besignificantly higher than those associated with traditional cages (in fact mortality is often lower). Inmany cases cage manufacturers are working closely with producers to improve cage design andhence performance. That said, there are a number of lessons from the Swedish experience thatcould usefully be applied throughout the EU.The role played by the retail and packing sector is instructive. If producers are certain that there willbe no market for their eggs past a certain date then they are more likely to make sure that they haveplenty of time to change systems. The decision by the packers to help with the one off investmentcost through provision of a bonus also clearly helped to induce producer investment.The Swedish government considers it essential that the deadline for the implementation of the banon unenriched cages in line with Chapter II, Art.5.2 of Directive 1999/74/EC is adhered tothroughout the rest of the EU. The experience of increasing imports from Finland highlights theneed to have a common production framework across the Union 139 . As the policy framework inSweden is even more restrictive than that set out in the Directive it is considered to be especiallyimportant for the Swedish industry that other Member States ‘catch up’ as far as the Directiveenables this.Indeed, the Swedes would consider it very useful to have a different label for eggs produced inenriched cages to allow consumers to appreciate the fact that eggs from some producers/MemberStates have higher animal welfare attributes than others. Swedish research into consumer willingnessto pay for eggs produced in higher animal welfare systems suggests that where consumers perceive adifference in production system they will pay for it. Assuming that this applies to eggs produced in138 This was relatively easy in the Swedish context where planning controls are not as strict as in more densely populated parts of the EU.139 Or as common a framework as possible given some national additions to the Directive.308