Lobbying by Compassion in World Farming International

Compassion in World Farming International

CIWF International

Compassion in World Farming is an NGO dedicated to ending factory farming.

Focus Areas

2024-2025

2020-2023

2015-2019

Links

Website Transparency Register Profile

ID: 26535516539-45

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

24 Sept 2025 · Long-distance transport of unweaned calves

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Jul 2025 · Livestock

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament) and Eurogroup for Animals and

19 Feb 2025 · Event animal transport

Meeting with Idoia Mendia (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion)

18 Feb 2025 · Meeting with Compassion in World Farming

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament) and Animal Welfare Foundation e.V.

21 Jan 2025 · Preparation event animal transport

Meeting with Krzysztof Śmiszek (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Dec 2024 · Animal Welfare and the problems concerning factory farming

Meeting with Veronika Vrecionová (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

4 Dec 2024 · Future of legislation on cage breeding

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Oct 2024 · Actie World Cage Free Day

Compassion in World Farming seeks detailed animal welfare stats

13 Aug 2024

Topic — The EU is defining specific variables for 2026 integrated farm statistics.

Message — They request data on animal housing, surgical mutilations, and livestock genetics. This includes tracking sow farrowing crates and rabbit cage systems.1 2 3

Why — Detailed statistics would help their campaign to end intensive factory farming.4 5

Impact — Intensive producers would face greater scrutiny over high-density animal housing practices.6

Read full response

Meeting with Anja Hazekamp (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Apr 2024 · European Animal Welfare Policy

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

27 Oct 2021 · CIWF asked for an update on the progress being made on the agricultural technical screening criteria in the taxonomy. They confirmed that they had contributed to the Platform on Sustainable Finance’s public consultation and were encouraged to see re

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Apr 2021 · The End the Cage Age initiative

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

22 Dec 2020 · Draft Delegated Act, Taxonomy

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

23 Nov 2020

The Delegated Act primarily focusses on ruminants and pays little attention to pigs and poultry. It is extremely damaging as it contains nothing that suggests that industrial livestock production is unsustainable and indeed will allow proponents of such production to argue that it is sustainable. This problem arises because the Delegated Act largely focusses on the farms themselves and mainly ignores the indirect effects of industrial livestock production. It totally ignores the detrimental environmental impacts of the production of cereals for feed. This production is nearly always carried out intensively with monocultures and agro-chemicals and leads to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and overuse and pollution of water. Because it ignores these indirect effects, the Delegated Act does not in any way suggest that industrial livestock production harms the Regulation’s objectives on water, pollution and biodiversity. If the Delegated Act were to include the indirect effects of cereal production for animal feed, it would have to conclude that industrial livestock production does significant harm to three of the Taxonomy Regulation’s environmental objectives. It does refer to “sustainable procurement of feed - when purchasing feeds with large potential upstream impacts, including indirect land use change, for instance, soya and palm oil based feeds, selecting feeds that are sustainably sourced and certified by a recognised body as being from areas not recently converted from natural habitats”. However, this falls far short of what is needed. The certification schemes for soy have not been able to halt the expansion of soy into forests and savannahs. Moreover, cereals are not generally covered by certification schemes. It largely focuses on the use of technological measures or a reduction in the use of agro-chemicals to make intensive farming somewhat less damaging - and it assumes that making intensive farming less damaging qualifies as ‘sustainable’. It fails to recognise that regenerative agriculture can restore soils and biodiversity, conserve water and store carbon so contributing to most of the Regulation’s objectives. One of the Taxonomy Regulation’s environmental objectives is “the transition to a circular economy”. Surprisingly – and disappointingly - the Delegated Act states that the impact of livestock on transition to a circular economy is ‘non-applicable’. This is extraordinary given that intensive livestock production - and the intensive crop production that provide the animals’ feed - are wholly linear in their structure. They use high levels of inputs, much of which are not converted into edible products but instead result in wasteful, environmentally damaging outputs. In contrast, pasture-based and rotational, integrated crop-livestock systems are circular. Animals eat grass, crop residues, and root crops grown on the farm. The pasture includes legumes (e.g. clover) which are a good source of protein in ruminant diets and fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil so avoiding the need for artificial fertilisers. The animals’ manure fertilises the land rather than resulting in polluting run-offs as is the case in intensive production. Worryingly, the Delegated Act advocates increasing ruminant productivity in order to reduce methane emissions. It makes no reference to the health and welfare problems that can arise from increasing productivity.

Read full response

CIWF urges EU to phase out cages and live exports

1 Jul 2020

Topic — The European Commission is reviewing the effectiveness of current animal welfare rules.

Message — CIWF requests the phasing out of cages and an end to live exports. They want binding targets to reduce animal production and consumption levels.1 2 3

Why — These measures would significantly advance their campaigning goals to eliminate intensive factory farming.4 5

Impact — Industrial livestock producers and live exporters face bans on their primary business models.6 7

Read full response

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner)

23 Jun 2020 · Farm to Fork Strategy

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner)

27 Feb 2020 · Animal welfare.

Response to A new Circular Economy Action Plan

20 Jan 2020

The European Commission’s Communication on the European Green Deal states that “the Farm to Fork Strategy will also contribute to achieving a circular economy”. Despite this agriculture is largely ignored in the Commission's thinking about the circular economy. Agriculture is a clear example of a sector that could readily operate to circular principles. At present, however, it is largely linear in its structure. It uses unnecessarily high levels of inputs, a large proportion of which are not converted into edible products but instead result in wasteful and environmentally damaging outputs. Rather than using high external inputs, circular agriculture strives to obtain inputs such as nutrients from within its world, for example through the use of legumes, green manure, cover crops and animal manure. It ensures that its wastes are recycled into productive agricultural use rather than being allowed to escape and pollute the environment. A large part of the nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers used in EU agriculture is lost to the environment through erosion, leaching and run-off. Inputting large quantities of a resource and then allowing most of it to escape from the agricultural sector and cause great damage is the very epitome of a non-circular system. We need to move to genuine nutrient cycling in which a much greater proportion of nutrients is created from within farming and much more of the nutrients are incorporated into edible products rather than leaking into the wider environment. Rotations, raising ruminants on pastures, integrated crop-livestock systems, agro-ecology, and agro-forestry are genuinely circular approaches to agriculture. Facilitating the transition to circular agriculture Common Agricultural Policy The CAP should play a leading part in steering the EU to a circular approach to agriculture. CAP payments should not be available for farmers who use more than a specified proportion of (i) synthetic fertilisers and (ii) pesticides and herbicides. Increased support should be given to farmers who adopt circular practices such as rotations; short food supply chains; the building of soil quality through the use of legumes, fallow periods, green manure and animal manure; and Integrated Pest Management with chemicals used only as a last resort. Taxes could be levied on the sale of synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides at a rate commensurate with the environmental damage caused by these products. The revenue raised should be used to to support a smooth transition to more sustainable practices. Public information and education The EU should develop programmes to increase public awareness of the environmental and animal welfare benefits of moving to a circular agriculture. Public procurement Public sector bodies should, when buying food, use their buying power to augment the market for food produced in accordance with circular principles.

Read full response

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

The Roadmap should give greater focus to the role of intensive agriculture in undermining biodiversity. The European Environment Agency (EAA) report on the State and outlook of the environment 2020 identifies agricultural intensification as one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in the EU. The EEA has concluded: “Biodiversity in agro-ecosystems is under considerable pressure as a result of intensified farming”. Farmland birds are considered to be a key indicator of the health of the countryside. Europe’s common farmland birds have declined by 30% since 1990; this has been linked to increased intensification as well as habitat loss. Intensive agriculture has also played a major role in the decline in pollinators such as bees through its use of insecticides and herbicides. A detailed study examined soils in 4 European regions: southern Sweden, southern UK, western Czech Republic and northern Greece. It concluded that intensive agriculture has reduced soil biodiversity in all these regions. It stresses that “future agricultural policies need to consider how to halt and/or reverse this loss of soil biodiversity”. The EU imports 36 million tonnes of soy per year mainly from South America. 95% is used as animal feed, mostly in the intensive pig and poultry sectors. Soy production leads to expansion of farmland into forests and savannahs with massive loss of wildlife habitats . Similarly intensive agriculture also has a detrimental impact on global biodiversity. The UNCCD states that livestock production is “perhaps the single largest driver of biodiversity loss”. A UN report states that “biodiversity loss is occurring at an alarming rate” and that habitat loss from unsustainable agriculture is among “the primary drivers of this assault on biodiversity”. A 2019 FAO report states that many key components of biodiversity that support agriculture are in decline and that the drivers for this include the overuse of harmful external inputs and the intensification of agriculture. Ever more forests and savannahs are being destroyed to grow soy and cereals for industrially farmed animals. This is eating into wildlife habitats driving many species – including elephants and jaguars – towards extinction. Agricultural intensification – in particular the high use of pesticides and monocultures and habitat loss - is the main driver of population declines in birds, pollinators and other insects. Solutions: We need to move to forms of agriculture that can restore biodiversity. These include agroecology, agro-forestry, rotational integrated crop-livestock systems, and well-managed pastures. A detailed French study shows that agroecology could provide a healthy diet for Europeans by 2050 while reducing GHG emissions from the agricultural sector and restoring soils and biodiversity. The study proposes a phase out of pesticides and minimal or nil use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers. Nitrogen would instead be supplied by the use of legumes and manure from ruminants farmed on permanent pasture and on temporary grasslands. Imports of soy for animal feed would be ended. In integrated crop-livestock systems animals are fed on grass and crop residues. During the grazing part of the rotation soil biodiversity and fertility is built through animal manure, the inclusion in the sward of leguminous plants such as clover [that help fix nitrogen], and the ability of the roots of the grasses to collect minerals from deep in the soil. All this means that the arable part of the rotation can be undertaken without chemical fertilisers, the manufacture and application of which entail substantial CO2 and nitrous oxide emissions. Well-managed extensive pastures can support biodiversity; they provide a diverse environment, rich in plants and invertebrates and beneficial to a variety of birds. Let me know if you want references for what I have said

Read full response

Response to Multiannual Financial Framework - CAP Strategic Plans

1 Aug 2018

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) would like to express its dissatisfaction with the overall process surrounding the new CAP proposals, as well as the content itself. Despite the public consultation over a year ago, with input from hundreds of thousands of citizens, the end result did not produce any significant reform proposal by incorporating some of the main recommendations conveyed in the consultation. The overwhelming response and citizen input calling for a radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy did not change the status quo approach which was there from the beginning. Maintaining the current model of subsidies while allowing Member States, under the guise of subsidiarity, to pursue their own tailored programmes as they see fit, will not result in any substantive reform or a coherent and sustainable strategy to prepare for current challenges and future challenges. Through the consultation process, citizens called for the CAP to do more for the environment and animal welfare, which does not translate though into an endorsement of direct payments as Commissioner Hogan presented it. Additionally, the Commission did not to conduct a REFIT compliance fitness check of the CAP, despite this being demanded by the REFIT Stakeholder’s platform and civil society. In regards to animal welfare, while it has become a specific objective of the CAP, the proposal does not take into consideration the fact that there are serious compliance issues even with existing legislation in Member States, therefore no assurance that higher animal welfare standards will be in place and monitored sufficiently. The proposal lacks in ambition and continues a business-as-usual approach. Not only does it not enhance animal welfare, it actively drives intensification and the productivist model. By increasing flexibility and giving more responsibility to Member States without increased accountability, it ensures that the animal welfare benefits citizens expect will not be delivered and standards won’t be consistently applied and enforced across the EU, due to short-term considerations and a great variation in the approaches followed by Member States. Furthermore, the proposed reduced budget puts into question the possibility for MS delivering any animal welfare measures, given the fact that such programmes are not mandatory and even in those cases where MS chose to include them, they depend on increased budget for their delivery and on effective reporting mechanisms that would oversee implementation and sanctions in cases of non-compliance. Recommendations for the CAP proposal below: - Achieving higher animal welfare standards should be one of the priorities of the CAP. Public funding should be used to support concrete and measurable positive outcomes in this area; - All payments set as conditional on compliance with all EU animal welfare legislation; - Animal welfare measures as a compulsory part of Rural Development Plans (RDP). - Minimum mandatory spending for all MS. Payments should only be given to programmes that bring effective benefits to the welfare of animals; - A specific reporting system and effective sanctions in cases of non-compliance, with conditions to be granted for CAP animal welfare subsidies. Member States should specify in detail the upgraded standards of production methods eligible for funding and improved animal welfare outcomes expected from upgraded standards; - Subsidies only to animal friendly farming systems; - Member States should be encouraged to promote more sustainable diets focusing on plant-based food through e.g. governmental promotional campaigns, and reduction in the consumption of animal products. The CAP delivers billions of public money to the agriculture industry every year but it should deliver on citizens’ expectations instead. A much needed transition towards more sustainable agriculture models and a coherent ‘food and farming policy’ should be the main focus and priority of the CAP.

Read full response

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

21 Sept 2017 · Business discussion

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

8 Jun 2017 · Use of antibiotics in the veterinary sector; Medicated Feed and Veterinary medicines