FAWC’s response, of 9 October 2003, to Defra's consultation on proposed changes to EC Welfare during transport rules

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposed changes to the current welfare during transport rules.

The Council broadly welcomes these proposals and will be commenting in more detail before the end of the consultation period. We will be commenting on the Technical Rules (Annex I) in our substantive reply. We will also be considering the impact of the proposed changes on livestock markets.

Scope

The term ‘commercial’ is not defined. If there is a desire for uniformity of approach both within and between member states, a definition is required within the regulation. Such a definition would provide clarification to trader, transporter and enforcer alike.

We are concerned that non-commercial transport operations and the transport of the single animal do not come within the scope of the regulation. We would welcome the inclusion of a basic rule that no animal should be transported in a way that causes pain, injury or distress, ideally as a ‘duty of care’ in relation to all animals or as a minimum, for farm livestock (Article 4(1&2) of WATO refers). For example most of the general rules under Article 3 could apply to transport of single animals and non-commercial journeys.

Definitions

There appears to be some inconsistency between the definitions of ‘journey’ under (h) and ‘long distance journey’ under (k). With the former, the journey includes loading and unloading at intermediate points in the journey; and under the definition of transport includes the loading at the place of departure and unloading at the final destination. With the latter the journey only starts when the vehicle starts to move. For example for a transporter operating under (h) a ‘journey’ may comprise 2 hours loading, 5 hours travel and 2 hours unloading, whereas under (k) full 9 hours of travel would be included. We believe that the definitions need to have a common principle and the animal welfare challenge clearly starts when the first animal is moved onto the vehicle and finished when the last animal is unloaded.

Vehicle Inspection and Approval

Prior approval of vehicles undertaking long journeys is to be welcomed. However, there is no indication of the criteria that would be used for inspection and certification. If member states are left to develop their own criteria, the aspiration of achieving consistent standards will be diminished considerably. This also appears to provide the prime opportunity to implement the type approval mechanism that has been in preparation for some time. However, we are concerned that a facility exists under Article 29(4) and 30(2) for individual countries to opt out of the proposed vehicle inspection and certification system. This is illogical given that these vehicles by definition are undertaking long journeys and the ones most likely to cross borders.

Authorisation

Whilst we welcome the authorisation of those undertaking long distance journeys, we are concerned about the implications of Article 11. In practical terms this would entail individual application and registration and the allocation of a transporter number to everyone moving animals over 50km. In addition, a system for re-application following a designated period is required (the renewal time differs between the text of the proposal and sample documents). Such a blanket approach would impose a significant burden on the transporter as well as the competent authority.

We recognise that there are transporters who are not doing long distances but at the same time are transporting considerable numbers of animals on a regular basis. These individuals clearly need to be distinguished from the farmer who has limited movements of his own stock.

Training courses and certification

The proposal focuses throughout on the word “training” as opposed to competence. In some cases a simple training course may be sufficient, for example, in the case of a farmer transporting his own animals. However, in the case of long distance journeys, a demonstrated level of competence should be seen as a minimum. It is our view that the standard of competence should apply across all Member States. There appears to be a void in the current proposals in relation in certification/competence for non long distance journeys. We are concerned that as in the case of authorisation, there is no distinction proposed between the short distance/high volume transporter and those undertaking occasional movements.

Journey Times

In principle we would welcome the reduction in journey times. However we recognise that this may give rise to problems in terms of ensuring that animals are rested on vehicles or allowed off the vehicle to be rested again under appropriate conditions. It would also be desirable to introduce the concept of a finite journey time.

Fitness to travel

We are disappointed that the content (Chapter 1(3)) still includes the acceptance that “slightly ill” or “slightly injured” animals are fit for transport provided unnecessary suffering is not caused. In our view this terminology is open to wide interpretation and not helpful. The aim should be to ensure that animals are fit for the intended journey.

FAWC Secretariat
October 2003