YOUR LOGO

Improvement of Animal Welfare During Long Distance Transport

SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274

CP2 FINAL CONFERENCEKurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague

7° May 2014

Harmonization of the Authorization of Control Posts in the EU

Paolo Ferrari CRPA

Contents

1. Intro

2. Community criteria for CPs

3. Sources of information on how CPs are authorisedacross EU

4. Outcomes

5. Discussion

Intro1. Control Posts (CPs) are places where animals

transported over long journeys (19/24/29) are rested for at least 24 hours or 12 hours in the case of unloading in a port of destination or in itsimmediate vicinity

2. Enough CPs must be available in all MSs becausewhen animals have been transported for longerthan the permitted journey time, the official vetsmust have the authority to order and must insistthat the animals are taken to a nearby CP, unloaded and given food, water and rest (FVE, 2001)

3. Especially when emergency situations occur duringnight-time or week-ends it often turns out to be very difficult or impossible to carry out the necessary unloading (Animals’ Angels, 2013)

Intro 4. CP facilities inspected by FVO were found

consistently lacking in several cases (e.g. adequate facilities for ill and injured animals, (un)loading facilities) (DG Sanco, 2004)

5. FVO reported major animal welfare problems felling into the categories of provision of care, records, structure and animal health (DG Sanco, 2004)

6. Interpretation of Community criteria for CPs, asdefined in Reg. EC 1255/97 and amended in Reg. EC 1/2005, seemed to vary across MSs

Intro8. The CP authorisation procedures are decided by

each MS competent authority; the quality of theseinstructions were found to range greatly betweenMSs from detailed guidance to little or no instruction for vets working at the CPs

9. CPs are listed by the Commission upon a proposalof the competent authority of the Member State (MS) concerned

10.Enforcement of the Reg. EC 1/2005 remains a major challenge, partly because of differences in interpretation of the requirements and because of lack of controls by MSs (EC, 2011)

Criteria for CP facilities1. The CP has to insure the bio-security criteria are followed in

order to protect animals which are hosted (EC 1255/97)

2. Every CP must be located, designed, constructed and operated as to ensure sufficient biosecurity preventing the spreading of infectious diseases to other holdings and between consecutive consignments of animals passing through these premises (EC 1/2005)

3. Every CP must be constructed, equipped and operated as to ensure that cleaning and disinfection procedures can be carried out. A lorry wash shall be provided on the spot. Such facilities must be operational under all weather conditions (EC 1/2005)

4. They must be used exclusively to receive, feed, water, give rest, accommodate and care animals passing through these premises

5. Animals litter, faeces and urine shall not be collected from the premises unless they have been subject to an appropriatetreatment in order to avoid the spreading of animal diseases (EC 1/2005)

Criteria for CP facilities6. Every CP must have suitable equipment and facilities available

for the purpose of loading and unloading animals from the means of transport. In particular, such equipment and facilities must have a non-slip floor covering and, if necessary, be provided with lateral protection (EC 1/2005)

7. Bridges, ramps and gangways must be fitted with sides, railings or some other means of protection to prevent animals falling off them (EC 1/2005)

8. Loading and unloading ramps should have the minimum possible incline (max 36,4% for pigs, calves and horses and 50% for sheep and cattle other than calves; where steeper than 17,6% ramps should be fitted with foot battens) (EC 1/2005)

9. Passageways must have floor coverings which minimise the risk of slipping and be so constructed as to minimise the risk of injury to animals (EC 1/2005)

10. Particular care must be taken to ensure that no appreciablegap or step is allowed between the vehicle floor and the ramp or the ramp and the floor of the unloading area requiring animals to jump or likely to cause them to slip or stumble (EC 1/2005)

Criteria for CP facilities11. All facilities used for accomodating animals shall (EC 1255/97):

(a) have floor coverings which minimize the risk of slipping and do not cause injury to animals

(b) have roofs and adequate side protection to protect the animals from adverse weather conditions

(c) have suitable facilities for holding, inspecting, examining where necessary, feeding and watering the animals and storing feeding stuffs

(d) taking holding capacity into account, have adequate ventilation and drainage for the species of animal accommodated

(e) have natural or artificial lighting at a level sufficient to permit inspection of all animals at any time. If necessary, adequate backup lighting should be available

(f) have equipment for tethering animals which need to be tethered. Such tethering shall be carried out in a way which does not cause pain or suffering to the animals and permits them to feed, drink or lie down without difficulty

Criteria for CP facilities(g) have, in relation to the species concerned, sufficient space for the

animals to lie down at the same time and make their way easily to their drinking and feeding points

(h) have adequate supplies of bedding material. Such material shall be placed in each enclosure according to the needs of each species or category of animal accommodated

(i) be constructed and maintained in such a way as to avoid the animals coming into contact with any sharp or dangerous object or damaged surface which could cause them injury

12. CPs shall have suitable facilities for the separate accommodation of animals which are diseased, injured or in need of individual attention

13. Staging points shall have suitable facilities for all persons having business on and using the premises

14. Staging points shall have appropriate arrangements for the storage and disposal of waste material and for the storage of dead animals, pending their removal and destruction (…)

Sources of information on howCPs are authorised across EU

1. Grey literature

2. LinkedIn social networkingGroup 1 - Harmonisation of the authorisation of Control Posts in the UE (56 members)

3. Inquiry by e-mail to CA

4. Personal communications with CP owners and official vets of the CA

Outcomes

1. Is there an official procedure to authorise a new CPin your country?

Yes: IT, UK, DE, NL, FR, GR, RO, ES

No: HU, HR

2. Who formally authorise new CPs in your own country?

National CA: IT, HR, NL, GR, FR

regional CA: HU, ES

local CA: DE (often involving regional CA), UK, RO

Outcomes

3. Could you please describe the main steps of the process to authorise new CPs in your country?

- Formal application

- One or more inspections to check compliance, ask for eventual interventions and appoint max capacity

- Authorisation and communication to DG Sanco

In DE the authorization generally includes secondary regulation to prevent misunderstandings and to facilitate enforcement

In HR and expert group is formed by min 2 people of the Veterinary Food and Safety Directorate who are responsible for inspecting the CP

Outcomes

4. How long does the national procedure take to authorise a new CP?

1-3 months - UK (15 days if the premises are considered satisfactory), HU (max 21 d), NL (max 6 months mandatory), HR (from few weeks to few months), RO

3-6 months - DE (but it could be shorter theoretically), IT (from 3 to 6 months or more, due to several factors such as the pre-existence of facilities, the level of biosecurity of the selected site, the compliance with wastewater treatment rules, the cooperation with the local veterinary services)

6-12 months - ES

Outcomes

5. Do you consider this the necessary time or do you consider possible to shorten it?Yes this is the necessary time: all respondents

6. How efficient is your national procedure in order to assure harmonised compliance of CPs with criteria of Regulation (EC) 1255/97, as amended by Regulation (EC) 1/2005?

- Very efficient: NL (harmonised and documented approach through checklists and expert board)

- Efficient: DE (national guidelines), FR (checklists and a methodology for national inspection will be in place between end of April and mid-May 2014), HR(checklist available, procedure planned to be prepared next year), RO

Outcomes

7. In your country, are CPs authorised for hosting the same species structured, equipped and managed similarly, according to the same standards?

YesNL, HU, HR, RODE (due to the federal structure of Germany there might be differences in details in the Länder)FR (although there is room for interpretation for some criteria)

Outcomes

8. What are the requirements for facilities and management that CP owners must fulfill to be approved in your country?

In the NL the CP owner has to have a protocol in which he describes all procedures and steps to take when anything goes wrong. Facilities have to comply with standards as laid down in instructions of the handbook/guideline

DE (according to national legislation in the Handbook Tiertransporte guidelines)

UK, IT, ES, GR, HU, HR same as EC regulations with no national special/additional provisions

Outcomes

9. Are there additional more detailed AW requirements (e.g. space allowances)?

Yes:DE (space allowances according to stricter national legislation, staff qualification)FR, HR (intermediate densities between those for breeding facilities and those of Reg. EC 1/2005 such as in the HQCP handbook)

No: HU, HR, NL, RO, UK

Outcomes

10. Are there additional more detailed biosecurity requirements (e.g. perimetral fence, filter areas for visitors, staff and vehicles)?

Yes: DE (solid floor/ground outside the premises for cleaning/desenfection, fence and lockable and closed doors gateways, devices for cleaning and disinfection of footwear, trucks, premises for cleaning clothes are required, rodent control)NL (perimetral fence, filter areas for visitors, staff and vehicles)RO (national legislation for cattle farm biosecurity)FR (based more on risk analysis than on fixed standards)

No: HU, HR, UK

Outcomes

11. Are there additional requirements about other features than animal welfare and biosecurity (e.g. environment protection, work safety)?

Yes: DE (although not part of the “animal welfare” authorization),

No: HU, HR, NL, RO

12. What are the structural and management standards for CPs working also as assembly centers?

Same as in the Reg. EC 1/2005: DE, NL, RO, HU, UK, IT, FR

Discussion – statement 1

EU Guidelines to harmonize CPauthorisation are welcome for a

more effective enforcement of the EU regulation

Discussion:

Common EU guidelines are considered as an useful tool to inform animal transport operators

and support CA in enforcing EC regulationsacross EU in an harmonised way

Discussion – statement 2

Expert groups of the national CAsshould be established in all MSs and

linked together to share opinions and adopt common effective

measures to enforce regulations across EU

Discussion:

The FVO delegate suggests the consultation of the network of national contact points operating

in connection with FVO

Discussion – statement 3

Biosecurity measures should be better based on risk analysis rather

than on equal fixed standards in every CP across EU

Discussion:

Although clear basic biosecurity requirements should harmonised and implemented in every

CP, additional requirements, facilities and management practices should be considered and

put in place according to the outcomes of a biosecurity risk analysis to be updated

periodically

Thanks for your attention

SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274

CP2 FINAL CONFERENCEKurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague

7 May 2014