Enforcement problemsReports by the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and Animals’ Angels show thatcompliance with, and enforcement of, Council Regulation 1/2005 is poor in many MemberStates.Animals’ Angels (AA), Compassion in World Farming and Eurogroup for Animals urge theCommission and the Member States to launch an enforcement initiative designed to lead toimproved and more uniform enforcement of the Regulation across the EU.The FVO reports and our own experience suggest that a common problem is lack of clarity bythe officials responsible for controls and enforcement as to the steps that need to be taken toachieve proper compliance with the Regulation. This paper seeks to identify the principal riskfactors for poor enforcement and to indicate the actions needed to achieve a proper level ofenforcement.Journey logs: need to check that they are properly drawn upOfficials in Member States of departure often do not properly check journey logs. Article14(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation 1/2005 requires the competent authority to carry out appropriatechecks to verify that the journey log “is realistic and indicates compliance with this Regulation”.Article 14(1)(b) stipulates that when the outcome of these checks “is not satisfactory” the com-petent authority shall “require the organiser to change the arrangements for the intended longjourney so that it complies with this Regulation”.Reports by the FVO and AA show that important parts of the journey log are often left blank andthat, despite this, officials stamp the journey log as being satisfactory. For example, the 2009FVO report on Bulgaria states that important details were missing in the journey logs that they

examined and that there were several inconsistencies in the journey logs.1Similarly, the 2009FVO report on France states that eight journey logs for pigs checked in one district did not indi-cate in section 1 the number of animals, the estimated total weight of the consignment and thetotal space provided.2Suggested actionCentral Competent Authorities (CCA) should:give clear information to officials who are responsible for checking journey logs as towhat they must check in the logs, andmake it clear to officials that they shouldrequire organisers and/or transporters tochange journey logs thatgive incomplete information.Journey logs: need to check that they provide realistic estimated journey times and pro-gramme 24 hour rest stops when required by the RegulationParagraphs 1.4 & 1.5 of Chapter V of Annex I to Regulation 1/2005 provide that after 24 hoursof travel in the case of pigs and horses, after 29 hours of travel in the case of sheep and cattleand after 19 hours of travel in the case of unweaned animals “animals must be unloaded, fedand watered and be rested for at least 24 hours”. Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (asamended by Regulation 1/2005) requires this rest period to take place at an approved controlpost.An essential aspect of the system established by the legislation is that the journey logmust provide a realistic estimate of the journey time so that the competent authority isable to assess whether the animals must be unloaded at a control post for a 24 hourrest period. Section 1 of the model Journey Log set out in Annex II to Regulation1/2005 requires the organiser of the journey to state the total expected duration of thejourney and the scheduled resting places. As indicated earlier,Article 14(1)(a)(ii) of Regu-lation 1/2005 requires the competent authority to carry out appropriate checks to verify that thejourney log “is realistic and indicates compliance with this Regulation”.

It is clear that officials who check journey logs must satisfy themselves that (i) the estimatedjourney time is realistic and (ii) that a 24 hour rest stop at an approved control post is planned incases where the journey will exceed 24 hours in the case of pigs and horses, 29 hours in thecase of sheep and cattle and 19 hours in the case of unweaned animals.Recently TRACES has been helpful in this respect as it substitutes its own estimated journeytime for that on the journey log if the latter is unrealistically short. However, competent authori-ties (CA) should not place all their reliance on TRACES; they must apply their own judgment tothe matter. TRACES is a valuable tool but it is not infallible. It assumes an average speed of70 km/hour. In contrast to this, the FVO reports work on the basis of a lower average speed of65 km/hour. Indeed, some Member States believe a lower average speed than that used byTRACES is more realistic.

DG(SANCO) 2009-8263 - MR FINAL. Final report of a mission carried out in Bulgaria from 16 June to24 June 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on the welfare of laying hens and theprotection of animals during transport2DG(SANCO) 2009-8245 - MR FINAL. Final report of a mission carried out in France from 20 April to 24April 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of rules on the protection of animals during transport.

The FVO has also made it clear that the initial loading, unloading at intermediate stops and atthe final destination, any stops (for example, the mandatory break of at least one hour to giveanimals water and feed after a certain point and meal and toilet stops for the drivers) and anyroll-on roll-off ferry transfer must be included when calculating journey times and thus the pointat which animals must be given a 24 hour rest stop at a control post.3An allowance should bemade for delays due to heavy traffic.Suggested actionOfficials who are responsible for checking journey logs must satisfy themselves that theestimated journey time is realistic and that a 24 hour rest stop is planned at an approvedcontrol post after 24 hours of travel in the case of pigs and horses, after 29 hours oftravel in the case of sheep and cattle and after 19 hours of travel in the case of un-weaned animals.

Return of journey logsPoint 8 of Annex II to Regulation 1/2005 requires transporters to return the completed journeylog to the CA of the place of departure within one month of the completion of the journey. It isclear from FVO reports that transporters often fail to return the completed journey log and thatCAs often do not press them for its return.Suggested actionCAs should insist on the return of completed journey logs. They should check that thejourney has been carried out in compliance with the Regulation and in accordance withthe journey log as initially submitted and that any departure from the journey log was jus-tified. CAs should use drivers’ records (tachographs) and satellite navigation systems tocheck the returned journey logs.If the journey log is repeatedly not returned to the CA of the place of departure or if thejourney log repeatedly shows irregularities, the CA should use its powers under Article26(4) of Regulation 1/2005 to require the transporter to establish systems to prevent re-currence of the problem or, in serious cases, to suspend the transporter’s authorisation.

Need to ensure that animals are given a 24 hour rest stopEven when a 24 hour rest stop is planned in the journey log, it is important that officials checkthat animals are in fact unloaded for at least 24 hours at a control post after the travelling timesspecified in the Regulation. The requirement to give animals a 24 hour rest stop is frequentlyignored. In some cases transporters do not stop at all for the 24 hour rest period. In othercases they do stop but for significantly less than the legally required 24 hours. For example, the2009 FVO report on France stated that the animals were rested for less than 24 hours in thecase of 44 of the 55 consignments that stopped at a particular control post in the first eightmonths of 2008.Under Article 5(h) of Council Regulation 1255/97 the owner or person running a control postmust, within one working day after departure of a consignment, notify the CA of the date andtime of completion of unloading and commencement of reloading of each consignment.

Suggested actionOfficials should check on a random or targeted basis whether animals are beingunloaded for a full 24 hours at an approved control post. The CA of a Member State ofdeparture should ask the CA of the Member State where the 24 hour rest was due totake place to verify from the information submitted under Article 5(h) of Council Regula-tion 1255/97 whether a particular consignment was indeed given a 24 hour rest period.CAs (at the place of departure when checking returned journey logs, at the destinationand at the control post) should use drivers’ records (tachographs) and satellitenavigation systems to check whether the 24 hour rest was carried out.

Exceeding the permitted loading densityChapter VII of Annex I to Regulation 1/2005 lays down minimum space allowances. It is clearfrom reports by the FVO and AA that the permitted loading density is often exceeded. For ex-ample, the FVO General Report on the transport of equidae for slaughter stresses that lack ofcompliance with space allowances is a particular concern as these requirements have beenapplicable within the EU since 1996.4Suggested actionCCAs should give clear guidance to local officials as to how to check if the permittedstocking density has been exceeded. They should point out that the area available onthe vehicle is stated on its certificate of approval but must also advise officials how tocalculate that space in cases where the certificate of approval does not accompany thevehicle.CCAs should also give clear guidance to local officials on how to deal with provisions inChapter VII that permit the specified space allowances to be varied in certain circum-stances. The provisions permitting certain variations are expressed in broad terms andlocal officials would benefit from receiving clear guidance from the CCA.The guidance should stress that the Regulation makes it clear that the space allowancesset out in Chapter VII areminimumrequirements5and that the length of the transportand the temperature may require increasing the space. The guidance should also makeit clear that there must be sufficient space for the animals to reach the watering devicesand to be inspected.

Suggested actionThe CCA should give clear instructions as to what constitutes sufficient headroom. Their adviceshould be based on a letter dated 9 September 2009 from the European Commission to AA.The letter stated that the relevant parts of the report of the Scientific Committee on AnimalHealth and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) on the welfare of animals during transport (adopted on11.03.2002) can be taken as guidance for interpreting paragraph 1.2 of Chapter II.This report gives precise figures for headroom in the case of sheep, pigs and cattle. It statesthat the space above the highest point of sheep and pigs should be 15 cm for vehicles with agood forced ventilation system and at least 30 cm for vehicles without forced ventilation. Itstates that for sheep and young pigs the highest point on the animal is the top of the head whenit is held in a comfortable position.The report states that for cattle the height of the compartment should be at least 20 cm abovethe top of the head of each animal when it is standing in a comfortable position. In our view, forcattle with horns, the allowance of 20 cm should be calculated from the top of the horns.The Commission’s letter confirmed that in the case of sheep and cattle the highest point of theanimals as stated by the scientists is undoubtedly the head being held up. The letter concludedthat none of the animals should be able to touch the ceiling with its head.

Failure to enforce the requirements on vehicle standards for journeys in ex-

cess of 8 hours

Points 1.2 & 1.3 of Chapter V of Annex I to Regulation 1/2005 provide that journeys shall notexceed 8 hours unless the transporting vehicle meets certain additional requirements that areset out in Chapter VI of Annex I.FVO reports stress that CAs often grant certificates of approval to vehicles that do not meet therequirements for vehicles that are used for journeys exceeding 8 hours.6Suggested actionCCAs should give clear guidance to local officials as to how to assess if a vehicle meetsthe standards for vehicles used to transport animals for over 8 hours. It would be helpfulif the CCA were to provide a checklist for officials who are assessing such vehicles.Such a checklist has been drawn up by the German government.Guidance is needed both for officials who inspect vehicles to determine whether a cer-tificate of approval should be granted and for officials who carry out checks during a longjourney to assess whether trucks meet the requirements set out in Chapter VI of Annex Ifor vehicles that are used for journeys over 8 hours. The latter checks are needed as of-ficials cannot solely rely on the fact that a vehicle has a certificate of approval as its con-dition may have deteriorated since the certificate was granted. Moreover, a number ofthe requirements set out in Chapter VI apply not so much to the structure of the vehicle

A range of deficiencies concerning the supply of water have been found in the transports moni-tored by AA. These include:Insufficient number of drinking devices in the vehicleDrinking devices are often installed on only one side of the truck with the result thatmany animals cannot reach themDefective water systems that fail to functionWater system empty or turned offWater troughs full of faecesWater system not appropriate for the transported species. For example, calves andlambs are not accustomed to the nipples that are used on many trucks and do not knowhow to operate themSometimes nipples are positioned too high for lambs to reach themSuggested actionCCAs should issue guidance to local officials as to the need to check that there are asufficient number of drinking devices in the vehicle, that the water system and drinkingdevices are functioning properly and that they are designed and positioned in a way thatis appropriate for the species and age of animals that are being carried.

Transport of unweaned calves and lambsRegulation 1/2005 lays down shorter permitted maximum travelling times for unweaned calvesand lambs than for adult cattle and sheep. The Regulation provides that:after 9 hours transport unweaned calves and lambs must be given a rest of at least onehour so that they can be given liquid and, if necessary, fed.after a further 9 hours transport unweaned calves and lambs must be unloaded andgiven food, water and at least 24 hours rest.The transport of unweaned calves and lambs poses particular problems as cold water is an in-appropriate liquid for them.Suggested action

CCAs should advise local officials that the Commission has addressed, on 4 December 2009, anumber of recommendations to Member States for the transport of unweaned animals on longjourneys.7The Commission recommended that:For practical purposes calves could be considered as unweaned under the age of twomonths and lambs under the age of six weeks.Before or during the transport, the CA should systematically investigate which arrange-ments have been made to ensure that animals are offered electrolytes or milk substi-tutes during the resting period. Metal nipples or troughs alone should not be consideredas being adapted for drinking by unweaned animals.The transport of unweaned animals over long journeys should not be authorised if theoutside temperature during the journey is likely to be less than 0 degrees Centigrade.It is generally known by transporters, veterinarians and the authors that warm electrolytes ormilk replacer cannot be offered on board the truck. Accordingly, calves should not be kept onthe vehicle for the rest period of at least one hour that must be given after 9 hours transport.Instead they should be unloaded at a control post and given warm electrolytes or milk replacer.They should also be given warm electrolytes or milk replacer during the 24 hour rest period thatis required after 19 hours transport.Defective partitionsReports by AA often note that there is a large gap between partitions and the floor of the truck;this leads to a risk that animals’ legs can get stuck and injured in the gap. Such partitions donot comply with paragraph 1.1 of Chapter II of Annex I to the Regulation which provides that“Means of transport, containers and their fittings shall be designed, constructed, maintained andoperated so as to: (a) avoid injury and suffering and to ensure the safety of the animals”.Suggested actionCCAs should advice local officials that the use of partitions with a large gap between thepartition and the floor of the truck is inconsistent with the requirements of Regulation1/2005.

Failure to transport horses in individual stallsParagraph 1.6 of Chapter VI of Annex I provides that, when horses are transported on journeysexceeding 8 hours, they shall be transported in individual stalls. Reports by the FVO and AAindicate that this requirement is often ignored. The FVO has stressed that the use of rubbermats suspended by chains does not create separate individual stalls as required by Regulation1/2005 and leads to cases where horses which lie down during the journey are stepped on byother horses.8The FVO has also made it clear that partitions made of tarpaulin are not suitableto form individual stalls for horses.9Suggested action

SANCO D5 DSdj D (2009) 450351DG (SANCO)/2008- 7982– GR. General report of a series of missions carried out in 2007 to evaluatecontrols of animal welfare during transport of equidae destined for slaughter.9DG(SANCO) 2009-8245 - MR FINAL. Final report of a mission carried out in Romania from 25 May to29 May 2009 in order to evaluate the implementation of animal health and animal welfare rules in respectof trade in horses.8

CCAs should advise local officials that proper individual stalls must be provided forhorses that are transported for over 8 hours. The FVO has indicated that such stallsshould be made of solid material.10The Commission has stated that individual stalls forhorses must be of rigid construction and that they must be designed to protect horsesfrom the motion during the journey or the movements or kicks of the horses themselvesand to avoid injury or suffering of the animals. The Commission has confirmed that rub-ber mats, chains or ropes do not appear to be able to ensure that the aims of the Regu-lation are achieved.11

Unbroken horses should not be transported on journeys exceeding 8 hoursParagraph 1.9 of Chapter VI of Annex I provides that unbroken horses shall not be transportedon journeys exceeding 8 hours. Article 2(y) of the Regulation provides that unbroken horsesare “Equidae that cannot be tied or led by a halter without causing avoidable excitement, pain orsuffering”.Suggested actionCCAs should advise local officials that unbroken horses cannot be transported on jour-neys exceeding 8 hours. As this provision cannot be checked during a road check, itmust be appropriately checked by the CA before the journey and at the place of destina-tion.

Transport of unfit animalsThe transport of unfit animals remains common in a number of Member States even thoughsuch transport is clearly prohibited by EU legislation.12Suggested actionCCAs should:Remind local officials that Chapter I of Annex I to Regulation 1/2005 contains detailedprovisions on the factors that make animals unfit for transport.Provide local officials with the “Guidelines to assess fitness for transport of adult bovineanimals” that are being prepared by a range of bodies including the UECBV and theFederation of Veterinarians of Europe.13Remind veterinary officials at slaughterhouses that appropriate action must be taken onarrival of an unfit animal.Effective liaison between Member StatesA key provision of Regulation 1/2005 is designed to ensure that when a CA, for example in acountry of transit or destination, finds breaches of the Regulation, it reports them to the CA ofthe Member State of departure and the CA that granted the authorisation to the transporter orthe certificate of approval of the vehicle and, where the driver is involved in the failure to1011

As 9Letter from the Commission to the World Society for the Protection of Animals dated 16 January 200812See for example the 2009 FVO report on France at note 2.13These guidelines are being drawn up by Animals’ Angels, COPA-COGECA (European Farmers andAgri-Cooperatives), European Livestock Transporters, Eurogroup for Animals, Federation of Veterinari-ans of Europe, Institut de l’Elevage, International Road Transport Union and UECBV (European Livestockand Meat Trading Union)

observe the requirements of the Regulation, the CA that issued the driver's certificate ofcompetence. These provisions are set out in Article 26 (2)&(3). Their purpose is to enable therelevant CAs to take steps to ensure that similar breaches do not occur in future.FVO reports show that these provisions are frequently ignored and that CAs which discoverinfringements often do not report them to the other relevant CAs as required by Article 26(2)&(3).14Suggested actionCCAs should establish clear lines of communication with the CAs of other MemberStates to ensure that infringements are rapidly and effectively communicated to otherrelevant CAs, i.e.:othe CA of the Member State of departure,othe CA that granted the authorisation to the transporterowhere the infringement relates to the vehicle, to the CA that granted thecertificate of approval of the vehicleowhere the driver is involved in the failure to observe the requirements of theRegulation, the CA that issued the driver's certificate of competence.CAs that receive notification of infringements must take steps to ensure that similarbreaches do not occur in future.This communication can be easily achieved by making use of the contact points estab-lished in each Member State under Article 24(2) of Regulation 1/2005. A positive exam-ple of such communication is the collaboration between the Netherlands and Italy.

Checks during the journeyUnder Article 15 of Regulation 1/2005 the competent authority must carry out checks at anystage of long journeys.Suggested actionOne of the most effective places to carry out checks is during the loading of the animals at thestart of the journey. The authorities should check a proportion of loadings. At this time theywould be able to observe and deal with the following common problems:The use of vehicles that do not meet the standards required for journeys over 8 hoursUnsuitable or non-functioning watering and drinking devicesWater tanks not filled with waterInadequate ventilationInsufficient headroomThe transport of unfit animalsAnimals being carried at above the permitted loading densitiesFalsification of the actual “time of first animal loading” that must be indicated in section 2of the journey logFailure of the veterinarian to sign section 2 of the journey log.Regulation on official controls

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerns officialcontrols performedto ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animalhealth and animal welfare rules. Itcontains a number of provisions which, if adhered to, willimprove the effectiveness of official controls designed to ensure compliance with Regulation1/2005.The following provisions are of particular importance:CAs shall ensure that staff performing official controls:a) receive, for their area of competence, appropriate training enabling them toundertake their duties competently and to carry out official controls in a consistentmanner.b) keep up to date in their area of competence and receive regular additional training asnecessary (Article 6).CAs shall carry out official controls in accordance with documented procedures. Theseprocedures shall contain information and instructions for staff performing official controls(Article 8).Suggested actionCAs should provide the required staff training and information and instructions for staffperforming official controls. FVO reports show that many problems are caused by theCCA failing to prepare documented procedures and to give adequate information andinstructions to officials as to how to carry out controls.

Measures to be taken in the event of non-compliance with Regulation 1/2005Regulation 1/2005 requires penalties provided for infringements to be effective, proportionateand dissuasive. In some Member States the fines are too low to be dissuasive.In some cases Member States do not have the power to compel transporters from other Mem-ber States to pay fines. In addition, Member States are not effectively using the powers given tothem by the Regulation to secure improved compliance with the legislation.Suggested actionMember States should ensure that they have the power to impose fines that are sufficiently highto be dissuasive. They should also ensure that they have the necessary legal powers to requiretransporters from other Member States to pay fines imposed in respect of infringements thattake place in their territory.Member States should be willing in appropriate cases to use the following powers that are pro-vided by Article 26 of the Regulation:require the transporter concerned to remedy the breaches observed and – crucially - toestablish systems to prevent their recurrencesubject the transporter concerned to additional checks, in particular requiring thepresence of a veterinarian at loading of the animals. Requiring the presence of aveterinarian at loading would be particularly helpful in preventing recurrence ofbreaches.suspend or withdraw the authorisation of the transporter or the certificate of approval ofthe means of transport concerned or the driver’s certificate of competence.

Member States should be willing in appropriate cases to use the following powers, provided byArticle 23 of the Regulation, to address serious problems that arise during the journey:transferring the consignment or part of it to another means of transport. Such actionmay, for example, be appropriate in the case of animals that are being transported in ex-cess of the permitted loading densities or with insufficient headroom or where a vehiclethat does not meet the requirements for journeys in excess of 8 hours is being used onsuch a journey.unloading the animals and holding them in suitable accommodation with appropriatecare until the problem is resolved.

Failure to enforce the requirements on vehicle standards for journeys in ex-

cess of 8 hours

Deficiencies in the provision of water