Sent by

2011 Advisory Board Festival International du Cirque de Monte Carlo Monaco Dragone Belgium Cirque Arlette Gruss Cirque Medrano Parc Zoologique d'amnéville Sirkus Finlandia Finland Circus Krone Germany Circus Roncalli Germany Fővárosi Nagycirkusz Hungary Koninklijk Theater Carré Netherlands Stardust Circus International BV Netherlands Cyrk Korona Poland Circ & Variete Globus Romania Nikulin Moscow Circus Russian Republic The Great Moscow State Circus Russian Republic Gran Circo Mundial Spain Gandey World Class Productions United Kingdom Gebrüder Knie Schweizer National Circus Executive Officers Mr. Urs Pilz, President Mr. Egidio Palmiri Mrs. Zsuzsanna Herman Mata Mr. Calle Jernström Mrs. Carol Gandey Mr. Frank Keller Mr. Frans Cuijpers Mr. Bernard Van Goethem Acting Deputy Director General DG Health and Consumers Office F101 6/172 Rue de la Loi 200 European Commmission B-1049 Brussels Sent by email: SANCO-CONSULT-D5@ec.europa.eu Denis.Simonin@ec.europa.eu 28 February 2011 Subject: Second EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2011-2015 Dear Mr. Van Goethem: On behalf of the European Circus Association (ECA), I thank you for the opportunity to submit comments concerning the second EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2011-2015. The European Circus Association (ECA) is a non-profit organisation established for the purpose of preserving and promoting circus arts and culture as part of Europe s cultural heritage. The ECA represents more than 130 circuses, festivals, trainers and presenters in 29 countries and collaborates closely with professional organisations working in the areas of education of travelling children and vocational education and with partners such as the European Showmen s Guild and the Christian Council for the Pastoral Care of Circus and Carnival Workers. I. Preferred Legislative Option Without prejudice to the question of legal jurisdiction, the ECA supports Option D a policy mix including a framework law, objective indicators, co-regulation, a communication strategy, and a European-wide system for licensing animal personnel. The ECA respectfully submits the following detailed comments: A. Framework Law The ECA supports and believes there is value in a European Framework Law on animal welfare as proposed in the Paulsen report. The content could be based on the twelve Welfare Quality indicators and provide general guidelines. Fundamental, however, is the need to avoid inviting subjective judgements based on vague language, particularly if operators could be subject to prosecution for alleged violations. It is for this reason that the ECA only supports the creation of a Framework Law on the condition that it is accompanied by science-based indicators and co-regulation as discussed below. Also critical is the point made in the Paulsen Report that differing characteristics and living conditions require differentiated treatment. Paulsen, at para. 23. For example, animals under human care that work have very different needs and requirements than animals of the same species that do not work. This fact must be taken into account in developing a Framework Law or any other type of legislation. The ECA believes that a European-wide system for licensing of animal personnel is an important component of the proposed Framework. Currently, animal trainer licensing systems exist in only a few Member States. These systems may be workable within these Member States, however, they are inconsistent with each other and operate as barriers to the freedom of movement and provision of services. Headquarters: De Lagune 24-3823 TS Amersfoort - The Netherlands Phone/Fax: + 31.33.455.3569 Mobile: + 31.625.01.3436 Email: a.oudenes@europeancircus.info ING BANK IBAN: NL28 INGB 0666 5766 29 BIC: INGBNL2A Help us to make a difference for the conservation of endangered species in the wild by contributing to our recommended wildlife organisations and projects. For further information: www.europeancircus.info

Any specific regulatory language addressing working animals and/or licensing of animal personnel that may be applicable to circus should be developed by an international expert group, on a scientific basis, and in close consultation with experienced animal trainers and circus companies that own and present animals. B. Animal Welfare Indicators While in agreement that further work needs to be done to ensure that the Welfare Quality assessment protocols are more practical and easily applied in the field, the ECA supports the continuation of this work and its expansion to cover additional species so long as the outcomes remain science-based. At the 31 January consultation, participants were asked what would encourage operators to improve animal welfare. The answer, for the circus community at least, is certainty. If there are no rules, neither the public nor operators can concretely understand expectations; further, operators are in the unfortunate position of not being able to demonstrate compliance with expectations. If the rules are constantly changing and/or various political subdivisions have the right to impose different rules at any time, powerful incentives to invest in improved structures or better measures are sacrificed. Accordingly, animal welfare indicators for all species covered by the Framework should be developed. The ECA s experts have started work to identify potential indicators for certain species that are commonly presented in the circus and would be pleased to provide its proposals for consideration at the appropriate time. C. Co-Regulation Because the development of indicators for all species will take time, an interim solution to provide certainty, for the public and operators, is necessary. In this context, the ECA is interested in the idea of co-regulation, in which operators provide technical standards, criteria and/or guidelines, as appropriate, for their own sector s use in complying with the general requirements of the Framework. Indeed, the ECA has for many years been supportive of governmental regulation and has created a model regulation that sets forth proposed requirements for performing animals in the circus context (e.g., keeping, training, transport, licensing and inspections, animal personnel qualifications, recordkeeping, etc.). It is envisaged in the model that the animal welfare indicators discussed above would provide the species-specific content. Much of this work could be taken up in the co-regulation context until such time as indicators are available. The prerequisite, of course, is the establishment of a credible and effective legislative framework to support such operator-led initiatives. It also is necessary to clarify the legal nature of the contributions by operators under a co-regulation scenario. In the Commission s presentation on 31 January, slide 12 refers to both voluntary and compulsory standards. If operator codes or guidelines are not given some appropriate status, they are likely to be disregarded. It might be possible to draft the Framework in such a way that codes of practice or guidelines produced by operators in accordance with certain procedure are legally recognized. D. Research The Paulsen Report calls on the Commission to create general animal welfare legislation but also notes the importance of providing resources to ensure that it can be properly implemented. Paulsen, at para. 25. One way in which this can be done is to provide for streamlined, accessible funding to support specific animal welfare research projects and platforms for sharing the information. What is needed is not large sums of money but, rather, grants that can be easily accessed to support research needs identified by the operators themselves or government officials. In this regard, the ECA believes that the GHK Evaluation s summary of the review of scientific evidence in the United Kingdom concerning circus animal welfare in 2007 did not do justice to the important findings reported. The GHK Evaluation states only that the - 2 -

independent review panel reported that there is a lack of scientific evidence and therefore the development of policy will have to be based on political decisions. GHK, p. 33. The Panel was, in fact, disappointed with the evidence submitted but, based on that evidence, concluded that: Whilst it was accepted that animals kept in circuses were more confined than in the wild the opinion of most of the Panel was that this did not, necessarily, lead to adverse welfare. Radford Report, at para. 5.3.4. [A]lthough circus animals are transported regularly, there is no evidence that this, of its own nature, causes the animals welfare to be adversely affected. Radford Report, at para. 5.4.3. [T]here is little evidence that the health of circus animals is any better or worse than animals in other captive environments. Radford Report, at para. 5.6.2 The pertinent conclusion was, that on the basis of the scientific evidence submitted, there was no basis for a ban of any species of animal presented in the circus in the U.K. Radford Report, Executive Summary. For purposes of this submission, the important point is that where there are outstanding questions and/or concerns, resources should be brought to bear to support scientific research. What should not be done is to lament the lack of scientific evidence and then make blind political judgements that impact not only humans and their guaranteed freedoms, but the animals in their care. The ECA and its members stand ready and willing to cooperate with qualified and independent researchers on appropriate projects concerning not only circus animal health and welfare but animal health and welfare in general. It is a well known fact in the scientific research community that circus animals are often best situated for study because of their training and approachability. E. Communication and Education Strategy A serious and thoughtful public communications and education strategy is critical to the success of any future animal welfare strategy, policy or program of action. EU citizens (and government officials) are bombarded with misinformation and pseudo-science on a daily basis. Clear communications about EU expectations, legislation and compliance by operators are necessary to counter this and to provide any hope that operators can focus on improving animal welfare rather than fending off false accusations and public campaigns based on misinformation. It is also clear that communications from the Commission to Member State representatives do not always result in information getting to other responsible officials in the Member State and, more often than not, local authorities. Perhaps investment in workshops or other means to educate local authorities on EU animal welfare policy and/or legislation could improve the situation. II. Harmonisation and Stricter Measures A serious problem arising in the area of animal welfare is the imposition of stricter measures and, particularly, those that are not based on science. Such measures, which may be put in place by national, regional or even local authorities, disrupt the internal market, infringe on freedoms guaranteed to citizens of the EU, and undercut the value of expending resources in Brussels to create harmonised, well-reasoned systems. The ECA supports the approach taken by the Paulsen Report which states that Member States and regions should have the possibility to allow individual producers or groups to introduce voluntary systems that are more far-reaching than the common animal welfare requirements for the EU. Paulsen, at para. 26. The corollary is that Member States and their political subdivisions should not have the possibility to legally impose stricter standards that interfere with harmonisation and EU freedoms. - 3 -

Voluntary systems such as those proposed in the Paulsen Report essentially rely on public interest and public acceptance to be effective (and to cover the additional investment costs). They allow for differentiation among operators in a sector in a positive way and eventually can be beneficial in raising welfare levels as higher standards over time become more commonly employed best practices. The ECA also would like to note that the problems with stricter measures are highest where legislative is prescriptive; similarly, concerns decrease in a legislative scenario involving frameworks, co-regulation and objective indicators since these approaches, de facto, provide uniform goals and measures. III. Compliance with other EU Policies and Legislation It should go without saying that EU animal welfare policy and law must be consistent with policy and law in other areas. For example, it cannot be the case, in future, that Brussels takes up responsibility for animal welfare but claims to lack competence when Member State measures infringe on other EU policy and law as is the case with the existing ban on circus animals in Austria. The ECA is in full agreement with the Paulsen Report recommendation to conduct a review of the consistency of EU animal welfare policies with other policy areas (Paulsen, at para. 33) and believes that a review mechanism should be a standard part of the process for the development and implementation of animal welfare policy and law. IV. Importation As is the case now, any live animals brought into the EU would automatically be required to meet all applicable EU and Member State legislation. Provision needs to be made, however, for foreign persons to be able to seek qualification under any EU animal training system that may be established. V. Enforcement of Existing and Future Legislation Whatever options are selected for the second EU strategy, enforcement remains important. Looking at it from the operators perspective, however, it is necessary to have the tools for compliance. There are two areas of concern in this regard that merit attention. First, it has been the case that requests from the ECA for a list of contact persons responsible for implementing EU legislation have been denied on the grounds of privacy. If national or local authorities are unaware of EU legislation or interpretation, then it is sometimes necessary to involve a national contact person who is informed and can advise his or her colleagues. Contact information for each Member State for the responsible office for each piece of legislation should be available to operators expected to comply with it. Secondly, although the situation improves with updating of the Commission s website, it can still be difficult to access all of the Member State measures implementing EU legislation. For persons who live and work throughout Europe, this creates a major problem and is a clear impediment to compliance. VI. Animal Transport The GHK Evaluation states that there is a lack of clarity about whether Regulation 1/2005 applies to circus animals. GHK, p. 33. On the contrary, the Commission, subject to the usual deference to the European Court of Justice, has been clear that Regulation 1/2005 does not apply to circus animals. Unfortunately, other than the Member State representatives directly involved in Brussels meetings, Member State officials at the national, regional and, particularly, local levels remain uninformed. The result is that local inspectors are stopping animal owners who are transporting their own animals and know their needs better than anyone, and - 4 -

subjecting them to the requirements of 1/2005, measures largely intended for truck drivers who know nothing about animals. While it is clear that Directive 1/2005 does not apply to circus animals for lack of Community jurisdiction, every time it is applied in ignorance of that fact there are significant costs for the individual operator, both in financial terms and in delays, as well as welfare implications for the animals. This situation must be rectified in the short term. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to ongoing participation in this process. Sincerely, Urs Pilz President - 5 -