The Welfare of Animals During Transport

Document Sample
The Welfare of Animals During Transport Powered By Docstoc
					Welfare of Animals During Transport
Welfare of Animals During Transport
A consultation on the implementation in England of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005
A consultation on the implementation
Summary of consultation responses       in England of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

Summary of consultation responses

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Animal Welfare Division
Transport and Markets Team
Area 507
1a Page Street

Tel: 020 7904 6576
Fax: 020 7904 6961

December 2006


1.   Introduction                                          3
2.   Executive Summary                                     5
3.   Summary by Section
     Guidance on the scope of EU Regulation 1/2005         7
     Transporter Authorisations                            8
     Road Vehicle (and Container) Approval                 10
     Derogations Available for Vehicles on Road Journeys   12
     Between 8 –12 Hours
     Travel Documentation and Sea Transport                14
     Training and Competence Certification of Drivers of   16
     Livestock Vehicles and Attendants
     Consequential Amendments, including Revocation        17
     and Retention of National Welfare Rules
     Enforcement, Offences, Penalties and Appeals          18
     Guidance and Publicity Arrangements                   20
4.   Government Position and Way Forward                   21
     Annex I – List of respondents                         22
     Annex II – Breakdown of respondents                   25
     Annex III – The Six Consultation Criteria             26

1.       Introduction

1.1     On 8 May 2006, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) published a consultation paper on implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and
related operations (“the Regulation”). This Regulation comes into force
across Member States on 5 January 2007. It aims to improve animal welfare
by raising transportation standards and ensuring their enforcement.

1.2   The new requirements will affect all those transporting live vertebrate
animals in connection with an economic activity including hauliers and farmers
transporting animals. They will not affect transport of animals not in
connection with an economic activity e.g. taking a pet on holiday.

Strict rules will apply to all journeys in connection with an economic activity
with respect of:

     •   Responsibilities of transporters and keepers and handling practices;

     •   Fitness to travel including journey limits for young animals; and

     •   Transportation of horses.

Those affected will also include anyone providing training and assessment of
drivers, attendants and market staff in welfare and transport rules.

The new rules require among other things that:

     •   From 5 January 2007, anyone transporting live vertebrate animals over
         65km (approx. 40 miles) must be authorised;

     •   All vehicles used to transport farmed livestock, horses and poultry over
         8 hours must be inspected and approved against new standards; and

     •   From 5 January 2008, drivers and attendants on journeys over 65km
         must hold a certificate of competence if transporting horses, cattle,
         sheep, goats, pigs or poultry.

1.3     The Regulation is directly applicable across Member States. However,
secondary legislation is needed to provide for enforcement and penalty
provisions and derogations from the rules. The consultation document
focused on proposals to implement the Regulation in England. The Devolved
Authorities conducted consultations in their respective administrations. The
intention of the Devolved Authorities is to put in place similar arrangements for
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which, where possible, will mirror
arrangements in England. Each of the main issues for consulting relating to
implementation were set out in discrete sections within the consultation
document. Stakeholders were asked to respond to the questions posed in
each section.

1.4    The consultation document and partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
was sent to over 1400 interested organisations, key stakeholders and
individuals. These included representatives of the farming industry, animal
welfare groups, road hauliers, consumer organisations, those involved in the
horse sector, those involved in pet breeding or selling, local authorities and
other government departments.

1.5   During the consultation period we held a number of meetings with
stakeholder groups representing hauliers and carriers, welfare groups and
groups representing the interests of those involved with non-farmed livestock
such as cats, greyhounds and racing pigeons.

1.6     The consultation ran for 12 weeks from 8 May until 31 July 2006. A
total of 139 replies were received during this period. A breakdown of
respondents can be found in the annexes to this paper. In line with Defra’s
policy in openness, respondents were informed that their views may be made
publicly available. Those wishing their comments to be treated confidentially
were asked to make this clear.

1.7     We are very grateful to all those who responded. This paper tries to
reflect the general views offered, but inevitably, it is not possible to describe
all the responses in detail. We apologise in advance for any inadvertent

1.8    It should be noted that these proposals attracted a level of media
coverage, primarily in trade journals and magazines from a variety of sectors
such as the farming industry, hauliers and hobby breeders of cats (and a
number of other species).

1.9     In undertaking this consultation exercise and drawing up this summary,
we do not consider that several of the issues raised, and responses received,
easily lend themselves to simple statistical analysis. Many of the respondents
did not specify which questions they were replying to, and several of the
questions were wide ranging and general in nature. But we have tried to
indicate the overall level of support for each chapter. We consider that the
most important element of this exercise has been to analyse the key issues
raised, and the themes that have emerged

1.10   Copies of this summary can be obtained from:

Defra Information Resource Centre
Lower Ground Floor
Ergon House
17 Smith Square

Tel: 020 7238 6575

2.     Executive Summary

2.1    As well as covering a number of points from the consultation in detail,
the responses identified two major themes – the Regulation’s scope and its
provision to grant derogations.

2.2     In terms of scope, the main point raised by respondents was
clarification of the meaning of “economic activity”. Whilst the Regulation
applies to the transport of live vertebrate animals in connection with an
economic activity, it does not define what an “economic activity” is. However,
it does note in its preamble that it is not limited to transport where an
immediate exchange of money, goods or services takes place and would
include transport which directly, or indirectly, involves or aims at financial gain.

2.3    A strict legal interpretation based on European case law is that
“economic activity” can have a wide interpretation catching any journey linked
to any financial gain and not just businesses. Such broad scope was not, we
understand, the intention when the Regulation was negotiated. Our view is
that whilst this point would ultimately be for the courts to decide, we consider
that an owner or transporter carrying his or another person’s animals for profit
or as part of a business would be covered by the Regulation, but the transport
of pet animals and horses by their owners to and from events, even when
they win minor cash or other prizes, would be excluded as the primary
purpose is for pleasure or competition, not as part of a business.

2.4    This interpretation was reflected in the consultation document, which
provided examples of the kinds of journeys that we would consider to be
outside the Regulation’s scope. However, despite making it clear that the
transport of pet animals were not considered an economic activity, we had
extensive representations from ‘hobby breeders’ (of a variety of species) and
‘hobby farmers’/smallholders asking to be excluded from scope. The cat
fraternity was particularly concerned, for example, whether journeys involving
two or three cats taken in a family car to a show, or for the purposes of the
occasional sale, were within scope.

2.5    Other scope related concerns included working dogs (other than those
used by the police and armed forces) and the position of fish and circuses,
which at the point of publishing the consultation paper, was unclear. In the
time since the consultation was published we received clarification from the
European Commission that fish are included within scope, while circuses are
also covered unless the animals can be described as travelling in their
housing rather than being transported in connection with an economic activity.

2.6     The Regulation allows Member States to grant derogations to road
vehicles undertaking journeys of a maximum of 12 hours in order to reach the
final destination. This would cover the majority of journeys in the UK and
offers the prospect of reducing burdens relating to vehicle approval and
vehicle standards arising from journeys between 8 and 12 hours. The
consultation document stated that we need to balance welfare benefits
against cost and ease of compliance/enforcement. We said derogation

requests would require justifying evidence. We also stated that we would not
consider derogating where: journeys start or end outside the UK; clear welfare
benefits ensue from the new rules, where the new rules are identical or very
similar to the current rules; where compliance costs are insignificant, or where
it is felt by stakeholders that compliance would not be difficult.

2.7    We indicated that we would consider derogating journeys that take
place solely within the UK where: the costs to transporters, farmers etc in
implementing new requirements are disproportionate to welfare benefits; the
cost to those affected is disproportionate to the number and type of journeys
undertaken (these may be sector specific in some areas); the new
requirements are difficult to enforce effectively, or no clear welfare benefits

2.8    On the basis of this criteria, we proposed in consultation derogations
for: having water constantly available to pigs; insulated roofs in existing
vehicles; maintaining vehicle temperature at zero degrees centigrade or more
when animals are being loaded; installing some of the more sophisticated
requirements for mechanised ventilation, temperature monitoring and warning
systems; and installing satellite navigation systems.

2.9    Overall, responses were supportive of the derogations we proposed.
Only the animal welfare groups opposed the use of any derogations on the
grounds that Government should not concern itself with the costs to industry
of compliance when animal wellbeing is at stake and that derogations would
undermine the aim of the Regulation. They also felt that derogations will
impose difficulties of enforcement because they will make the rules more
complex and create a multitude of exceptions adding that it is erroneous to
suggest that the containers in which animals and birds are transported affect
welfare more than the vehicle itself with design and construction being

2.10 Additional requests for derogations fell largely into two groups: non-
farm species and poultry (i.e. where carried in containers, including raptors,
game birds, fish, reptiles (including tortoises), amphibians and rodents).
Respondents’ rationale was that these animals, birds and fish are transported
in crates/boxes/tanks/sealed containers which are not intended to be opened
during transportation. Indeed, opening the containers could be detrimental to
the welfare of the vertebrate animals inside. It is the container the animal is
transported in, rather than the vehicle itself, which is critical to the welfare of
the animal. A bare inspection of a vehicle would add little to welfare
considerations, but could add a significant regulatory burden to those
affected. Farm Livestock - the farming/livestock representative groups
(National Farmers Union, National Pig Association, Meat and Livestock
Commission etc) support the derogations proposed, but at the same time
requested full derogation from vehicle approval and standards on the grounds
that the extra financial and regulatory burden would be disproportionate to the
welfare benefits. They considered the use of full derogation for domestic
journeys would still provide a totally adequate level of animal welfare. They

also argued that a uniform 12-hr cut off would make compliance and
enforcement easier.

3.       Summary by Section

3.1      Guidance on the scope of EU Regulation 1/2005

Consultation Questions

•     Is the guidance proposed on scope clear? Do you wish to recommend any
•     In particular, are there other exemptions that need to be highlighted in the
      guidance at paragraph 2.11?

Summary of main issues

As mentioned in the executive summary, one of the major themes of the
consultation was how to define an “economic activity” for the purposes of this
Regulation. The Regulation does not provide a specific definition but we took
the view taken that an economic activity should mean “Any transport of
animals undertaken as part of a business or commercial activity, which aims
at achieving financial gain, whether direct or indirect, for any person or
company involved with the transport.” In terms of clarity of guidance,
respondents were split almost equally between those who understood the
guidance and those who didn’t. In most cases, clarification was requested as
what an “economic activity” is and whether journeys involving a given species
would be considered in or out of scope.

The vast majority of those responding to this section made requests to be
excluded from scope. Many stakeholders were confused as to what
constitutes an “economic activity”. Despite our stating that the transport of pet
animals etc was not considered an “economic activity” we had extensive
representations from hobby breeders (of species other than farm livestock
and poultry) who exhibit and occasionally breed from them. Some
sell/exchange surplus animals/birds, but this income source was generally a
small proportion of the total expense of the hobby. The cat world was
particularly concerned, for example, about whether two or three cats taken to
a show in a family car (or the occasional animal being sold) was within scope.

Hobby farmers/smallholders (farm livestock and/or poultry) also requested to
be excluded from scope for reasons similar to those of hobby breeders.
Some of them also breed to improve the genetic diversity of the pure bred

We also received a request for exclusion from those using working dogs in all
public services and armed forces (prisons, fire service, search and rescue). A
number of respondents requested clarification as to whether the
transportation of fish and circus animals was within scope.

Defra response

We contacted the European Commission with regards to the status of fish and
circuses and they confirmed that both were within the Regulation’s scope
(unless circus animals could be described as traveling in their housing rather
than being transported in connection with an economic activity).

On hobby breeding, we take the view that those hobby breeders handling non
farm livestock/poultry, whose income source does not exceed the expenses of
their hobby, are excluded from scope on the basis that economic activity and
profit is not the purpose of their hobby and journeys undertaken are not in the
course of business or trade.

We considered whether a similar exemption should be given to hobby
farmers/smallholders, but concluded there should be no blanket exemption
from scope as they deal with farm livestock/poultry which has always been the
focus of transport welfare requirements. Indeed, the bulk of the detail of the
Regulation is aimed at farm livestock and poultry (and horses). Furthermore,
it would be difficult for enforcement officers to differentiate between hobby
farmers and others in the farming industry.

We agree that the public services and armed forces should be outside the
scope of the Regulation – this would be in line with the existing provisions of
the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 (WATO 97). However, private
security and other private sector companies will be within scope.

3.2      Transporter Authorisations

Consultation Questions

•     Do you agree with the proposals relating to self-declaration and checks on
      compliance with welfare rules from 5 January 2007? If not, what would you
•     Do you agree with the proposals relating to vehicle approval, self-
      declarations and checks on compliance with welfare rules as regards GPS
      and contingency planning, from 5 January 2007? If not, what would you
•     Is there anything you would add to the declarations?
•     Do you agree that in the absence of an agreed EU wide navigation
      system, the UK should not recommend the use of any particular systems
      at this time?
•     Do you agree with the phased and prioritised approach to authorisations?
      If not, what would you propose?
•     Do you have views on charging for these authorisations?
•     Do you agree that authorisations should be mode of transport specific?

•   Do you agree that authorisations should be issued covering all species,
    but that species specific or limited authorisations should be available?
•   If not, how would you propose balancing proportionality of the prospect of
    removing an authorisation, when the offence may only relate to one
•   Do you agree with the proposal to make transporter names and
    authorisations available to would-be consignees as suggested? If not,
    what would you propose and why?


Current transporter authorisations will be invalid after 5 January 2007. After
this date, anyone transporting any vertebrate animals over 65km in
connection with an economic activity will need to apply either for a short
journey authorisation (journeys over 65km and up to 8 hours) or for a long
journey authorisation (journeys over 8 hours). Common requirements apply
to all authorisations, but additional requirements will apply to long journeys.

In terms of applying for authorisations, the majority of respondents (64%) felt
that self-declaration and checks on compliance with welfare rules was the
only workable method. Most considered that nothing should be added to the

The vast majority of respondents did not favour the introduction of GPS
tracking systems and agreed with our assessment that the UK should not
recommend the use of a particular system at present. Many suggested
further research into this issue. To avoid ‘gold plating’ most respondents felt
that nothing more needed to be added to the declarations.

We asked for views on charging for authorisations. Of those who responded,
one third were in favour, one third definitely opposed and the remainder had
wide ranging views as to feasibility and how a charging regime could be

81% of respondents were in favour of authorisations being mode of transport
specific. When questioned on the mode of authorisation, 63% supported an
all species authorisation, while 29% suggested that they should be species-
specific. Most respondents felt that a record of welfare offences should result
in a withdrawal of authorisation regardless of the species involved.

Views were divided as to our proposal to make long distance transporters’
contact details available for use by enforcement authorities and Member
States. Whilst just over half (58%) were in favour of this proposal, the
remainder had doubts, mostly on security grounds. 18% opposed it outright
and 22% had considered the proposal questionable. Some also questioned
restricting this record keeping to long distance hauliers only.

Defra response

We considered the arguments for and against the system of self declarations
and concluded that there are no other practical means by which we can set
criteria that transporters can demonstrate when the size of companies
involved will vary immensely. Nor could we inspect, test or judge in any
meaningful way what would be worthwhile in terms of cost and resources both
we and the companies concerned would have to expend when measured
against any perceivable welfare benefit.

A significant proportion of those who responded to the consultation exercise
disagreed with proposals for cost recovery. Many commented that given this
is a new system, they felt that waiving charges for a given period would
encourage early applications to be made to avoid delays often associated with
implementing charging systems. We decided not to charge for authorisations
initially, but Ministers wish to see cost recovery for transporter authorisations
introduced at a later stage in conjunction with ours and the SVS’ broader
agenda on cost sharing.

3.3      Road Vehicle (and Container) Inspection and Approval

Consultation Questions

•     Do you have any information on the number of vehicles and containers
      that will be affected by the requirement for inspection and approval relating
      to the different sectors, including those outside farming (e.g. horses, zoos
      and the pet trade)?
•     Are you content with the proposal that vehicle inspection and approval be
      carried out by any body that can demonstrate its capability and
      competence to deliver through accreditation with the United Kingdom
      Accreditation Service (UKAS)?
•     Do you agree that, in addition to UKAS approved non-public bodies, that it
      is prudent also to give a statutory body such as the State Veterinary
      Service (SVS), the power to approve vehicles?
•     Are you content with these principles outlined in paragraph 4.14 for a
      vehicle approval scheme? If not, what would you propose?
•     Are you content with requirements described in paragraph 4.15 for a
      vehicle approval scheme?
•     Do you have any information on the costs and benefits associated with
      vehicle inspection and approval?
•     Would you like to be kept informed about the vehicle approval scheme and
      guidance in preparation?


From 5 January 2007, road vehicles used for transporting all species of
animals on long journeys (those in excess of 8 hours) must be inspected and
approved by the competent authority of a Member State or a body designated
by a Member State.

Unfortunately, respondents could offer only little in the way of the numbers of
vehicles that will need inspection and approval. Precisely half of respondents
were content with vehicle inspection and approvals being carried out by a
body accredited by UKAS. 39% felt that any such body should not be one
that already has involvement with assurance schemes, while 19% opposed
this suggestion outright. 78% were content for the SVS to be given the power
to inspect vehicles. 4% expressed reservations as to SVS’ qualification to
undertake this role with the remainder being undecided.

The majority of respondents (61%) were content with the principle for a
vehicle approval scheme. A similar number were also content with the
requirements for such a scheme set out in the consultation paper. However,
some signaled their agreement based around consideration of a number of
provisos, which included consideration of differing vehicle requirements (e.g.
horseboxes), minimal charging, possible links to the MoT test and the need
for consistence and cohesiveness to be observed across the country. Again,
little or no information was offered in terms of likely costs.

There was no proposal for an appeals mechanism in the consultation
document for refusal of vehicle approval. A number of respondents objected
to this. Some respondents requested an appeals system similar to that
employed by Vehicle and Operator Services Agency for MoT vehicle testing,
and others suggested a simple appeals procedure run by an independent

Defra response

We considered the comments by welfare groups that vehicle inspection and
approval should not be carried out by bodies that had connections with the
farming community. We concluded, however, that assessment by UKAS of a
body’s ability to meet the scheme’s requirements including impartiality would
meet concerns expressed. It would also be wrong to exclude any body that
could meet scheme requirements and to introduce a further layer of farm visits
to inspect vehicles.

We took on board the call for the need to include a provision for a system
whereby appeals would be considered by the given Competent Authority.

3.4   Derogations Available for Vehicles on Journeys Between 8-12

Consultation Questions

•   Do you agree with the rationale for granting derogations (paragraphs 5.3
    and 5.5)?
•   Do you agree with the derogations proposed (paragraph 5.4)? If not, what
    evidence can you supply to refute the rationale?
•   Do you agree with the costs assessment and consequent reduction if
    these derogations are granted (paragraph 5.6)?
•   Do you support the principle that all vehicles used to transport animals
    over 8 hours should be inspected and approved? Note that the burden of
    inspection costs will fall to the transporter – this will not be a free service
    from Defra or its agencies.
•   Do you think there is a case for derogating from this requirement for UK
    journeys between 8-12 hours? And if so, why?
•   Are there particular industry sectors affected that should be granted a
    derogation as opposed to others? By way of example, poultry/birds,
    horses/ponies, cats and dogs, zoo/performing animals. And if so, which
    ones and why?
•   Do you think derogations (or the current requirements) will pose any
    difficulties in terms of enforcement?
•   What welfare benefits will ensue from approval?
•   Do you support or oppose any further derogations available (outlined in
    the table in Section 5.8)? If so, what evidence can you supply to support
    your argument?


The Regulation allows Member States to apply certain derogations to road
vehicles undertaking long journeys up to a maximum of 12 hours in order to
reach the final destination. This covers the majority of journeys in the UK (bar
some from Scottish islands) and offers the prospect of minimising burdens
relating to vehicle approval and vehicle standards arising from journeys
between 8 and 12 hours.

The majority of respondents (77%) agreed with the rationale for granting the
proposed derogations. The remainder were split almost equally between
completely disagreeing with the rationale and questioning its basis. Most of
these represented animal welfare organisations.

Generally, welfare lobby groups were in opposition to the use of derogations
on the grounds that Government should not be concerning itself with the costs
to industry of compliance when animal well-being is at stake. They consider
that derogations would undermine the aim of the Regulation and would

impose difficulties of enforcement because they will make the rules more
complex and create a multitude of exceptions. Horse welfare groups had
particular concerns with regards to any derogations from the requirements for
ventilation systems.

65% of all respondents agreed with the derogations proposed. The remainder
were split 50/50 between not supporting the principle of derogations and
questioning whether they should apply to specific species only. 50% of
respondents agreed with the cost assessment set out in the consultation
document and RIA. 33% felt that costs were impossible to accurately and the
remainder disagreed with the figures.

Of those responding, 53% agreed with the principle of inspection and
approval for vehicles undertaking journeys over 8 hours. 37% disagreed.
The reasons for disagreement were either extra costs/burden on business or
a perceived lack of welfare benefit in terms of transporting non-farm species
(i.e. dogs, cats, reptiles etc). Opinion was equally divided as to whether there
was a case for derogating from all inspection and approval requirements. The
majority who disagreed felt that the case for inspection was sound for reasons
of animal welfare.

Just over 52% of respondents felt that particular industry sectors should be
granted a derogation from vehicle approval. The farming lobby requested full
derogation from inspection and approval requirements on the grounds of the
financial and regulatory burden being disproportionate to welfare benefits

Other sectors (cats, dogs, poultry, circus animals etc) requested derogation
from inspection and approval of animals carried in containers. Their grounds
being that opening such containers for inspection would in many cases
compromise the animals’ welfare. The welfare lobby believed it was
erroneous to suggest that the containers in which animals and birds are
transported affect welfare more than the vehicle. They consider that vehicle
design and construction should be equally important.

55% felt that derogations (or the current requirements) would not pose
enforcement difficulties. Again, most of those who disagreed did so from a
welfare point of view highlighting possible consistency problems and a lack of
clarity on this element of the Regulation.

Defra response

We considered the representations received and concluded that based on the
criteria published in the consultation document, the derogations we had
suggested should stand. However, in response to a concern raised by
welfare groups on the vulnerability of young animals, we have amended the
proposed derogation from maintaining the temperature of a vehicle at 0ºC
when loading/unloading a vehicle. For pigs weighing less than 30kgs, the
derogation will not apply unless accompanied by their mother or provided with

adequate bedding. There is no derogation from the higher temperature

As regards non-farm species and poultry, we are interpreting the Regulation
as not requiring inspection and approval of vehicles used to carry containers
which do not form part of the vehicle itself. The Regulation is clear that
inspection and approval of containers carrying these non-farm animals is not
required. However, the provision relating to the inspection and approval of
road vehicles used to transport animals on long journeys is unclear in its
application to the transport of animals in containers. Although the Regulation
could read as requiring approval of the road vehicle carrying the container, the
criteria for approval has little relevance to the vehicles (whether it is a family
car or a van). The criteria generally relate to an animal’s immediate
environment and checking the vehicle for compliance would add little or no
benefit to welfare of the animals in the container.

Further consideration has led us to conclude that it is reasonable to interpret
the Regulation as not requiring the inspection and approval of vehicles that
carry containers. Not requiring the prior inspection and approval of these
vehicles does not release transporters from ensuring the vehicles used to
transport a container meets the criteria of approval laid down in the
Regulation nor would it exempt them from general obligations relating to the
transport of animals. It will, however, negate the significant regulatory burden
inspecting and approving such vehicles would impose.

In addition to the above, we have also given a general derogation from vehicle
inspection and approval for non-farm species (including horses). We did not
consider the farming community had presented substantive evidence to
support their call for an unlimited derogation.

3.5      Travel Documentation and Sea Transport

Consultation Questions

•     Do you agree the retention period for ATCs should remain and
      unchanged? If not, what would you suggest and why?
•     Do you agree that Animal Movement Licences should be amended to
      include journey duration?
•     Do you agree with the proposal to require the keeper checks the
      transporters documentation? If not, why not – and what would you propose
•     Do you think the proposal relating to adding information on records
      retention & office checks is helpful? If not, why not and what would you
•     Do you agree that as far as practicable the current route plan procedure
      should be retained following the introduction of Journey Logs? In
      particular, the 10 day notification period? If not, why not & what would you



Animal Transport Certificates (ATCs) - or equivalent documentation - will
continue to be required in most cases for journeys where journey logs are not
required. The main purposes of ATCs are to help transporters and inspectors
ensure journeys are within the maximum journey times for the animals and to
inform the appropriate vehicle standards of vehicle being used. The records
are currently kept by the transporter and must be retained for 6 months. We
proposed to carry this retention period forward. Journey logs will replace
Route Plans from 5 January 2007 and include new provisions that will aid
compliance checking.

78% agreed that the retention period for ATCs should be remain unchanged.
The remainder disagreed primarily on welfare grounds. Some suggested that
ATCs retention periods should increase, others suggested more information
to be included on the certificate such as identification of species concerned.

63% agreed that Animal Movement Licenses (AMLs) should be amended to
include journey duration. The remainder disagreed, mostly on the basis that
AMLs already contain enough information.

Opinion was divided with regards to the proposal requiring keepers to check
transport documentation. Half felt this was a good idea (mostly the animal
welfare lobby) and half disagreed primarily for reasons of information

Three quarters of respondents felt our proposal for adding information on
records retention & office checks was sound. The remainder disagreed
unanimously that this proposal was pointless and added no welfare benefit.

85% felt that the current Route Plan procedure should be retained for Journey
Logs (in particular the 10-day notification period). Those who disagreed did
so on the grounds of business needs adding that Route Plans will be more
onerous than Journey Logs and the 10-day period an unnecessary burden on

Defra Response

The general agreement on maintaining the 6 month retention period is
welcomed and will be implemented. It is not felt there is any value in
extending the period. The requests for additional information to be included
has been noted and additional information such as species carried,
registration number and date and time of unloading have been added to the
ATC that we have produced (form WIT 7, available on our website) and
transporters may use. However, this additional information is not required by
the Regulation and must therefore be voluntary. The WIT 7 shows which are
mandatory fields. Concern was also expressed over duplication of
information. As there is no set format in which the information required on an

ATC has to be kept, any other documentation containing all the required
information may be used such as AML forms, delivery notes or statutory
movement documents. There is therefore no need for duplication.
Adding the additional journey time to the AML forms is just meeting the
additional requirement to record the time imposed by the new Regulation. It is
added to the section of the AML which acts as an ATC if the transporter
wishes to use it.

On the question of Keepers at departure premises checking authorizations
etc, there is a general obligation on anyone finding a non compliance to report
this fact to the office that issued the Journey Log. As such, it must remain the
responsibility of the Keeper to report a non compliance but it is not felt
appropriate fro them to assume an enforcement role and prevent departures.
It is the transporter’s responsibility to ensure compliance and an Inspector’s
responsibility to enforce.

Retention of Journey Logs for 3 years is a compulsory requirement of the
Regulation and cannot be changed. It is important that Journey Logs are
returned to issuing offices so that checks can be carried out that all stages of
journeys were compliant and any non compliances can be addressed.
Anything that will help return of the documents must therefore be a useful tool
in enforcement and future regulation of transporters.

On the question of how long before an export Journey Logs should be
submitted, a balance must be struck between the commercial operational
requirements of the exporter/transporter and their customers, the need to
ensure proposed journeys are assessed as within the rules and the
authenticated Journey Log is in the hands of the Local Veterinary Inspector in
time to carry out the necessary pre-export inspections. Ten days is still
desirable and seen as guaranteeing delivery but experience has shown that
Journey Logs can be turned around with less time. Accordingly, transporters
will be advised that Logs submitted within 5 working days will be processed
but any submitted in less then this may not be processed in time.

3.6   Training and Competence Certification of Drivers of Livestock
Vehicles and Attendants

Consultation Question

•   Do you agree that satisfactory certification of the competence of
    transporters and attendants is best achieved by offering both the above
    options? If not, what would you prefer to see in place?


From 5 January 2008 all transporters and attendants using road vehicles for
transporting farm animals, poultry and horses in connection with an economic
activity, for journeys over 65km, must have received appropriate training and
must hold a certificate of competence. We proposed to apply a two-tier

system of certification (those involved in long journeys could be assessed to
the highest level -including practical assessment and those involved in shorter
journeys could be assessed by means of a theory test).

Most respondents felt that our proposed method for handling this requirement
was sufficient. A number had concerns that this element of the Regulation
would not be implemented by January 2008.

58% agreed that both options for competence certification are required.
Some added that competence requirements for the handling of specific
species would also be desirable, others suggested linking the theory test (for
short journeys) with the long journey practical assessment. Some provided
suggestions for augmenting the competence framework such as driver
competency. Others had concerns with regards to suitability for those with
literacy problems. The remainder neither agreed nor disagreed whilst offering
varying comment.

Defra response

None of the consultation responses necessitated deviation from the broad
principle outlined in the consultation document. The attainment of certification
of competence to the requirements, which are applicable only to farm
livestock, horses and poultry, is most easily reached by provision of a choice
of awarding bodies catering for individual sectors. There was some
preference by animal welfare NGOs for a single regulatory body to be
appointed but by deciding that any awarding body should be accredited
through independent expert bodies (UKAS or QCA in England) independence,
transparency and accountability is assured.

The consultation also created interest from a number of potential training
providers who are considering products to supplement existing training by
vocational trainers and industry. A major factor in deciding on the proposed
methods was the need for the most flexible, practical and accessible
approach possible to deal with the large number of farmers and hauliers who
need to be assessed.

3.7    Consequential Amendments, including Revocation and Retention
of National Welfare Rules

Consultation Questions

•   Are you content with what we propose in terms of consolidation and
•   Do you agree that we should retain parts of WATO that are relevant to
    journeys not covered by the EU Regulation?


A number of separate GB Statutory Instruments currently in place overlap
areas covered by the new Regulation. We proposed that the provisions in the
Statutory Instruments that mirror provisions in the Regulation be revoked.

59% were completely content with proposals for consolidation and revocation.
31% were on the whole content but suggested that further advice should be
made available via guidance. The remaining 10% felt that elements of the
Regulation did not go far enough in terms of animal welfare and as such they
considered the Regulation a backward step.

The vast majority of respondents (82%) felt that parts of WATO 97 should be
retained for journeys not covered by the Regulation.

Defra response

In addition to the requirements of the Regulation, section 1 of the Protection of
Animals Act 1911, continues to make it an offence to “convey or carry or
cause or procure, or being the owner permit to be conveyed or carried, any
such animal in such a manner or position as to cause that animal any
unnecessary suffering”. It also provides that an owner “shall be deemed to
have permitted cruelty within the meaning of the Act if he shall have failed to
exercise reasonable care and supervision in respect of the animal there from”.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 contains a general duty of care towards any
vertebrate animal. This comes into effect in April 2007.

In addition to these, a general provision on the protection of animals during
transport has been included in the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England)
Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/3260), which makes provision in England for the
administration and enforcement of the Regulation. The general provision
applies to the transport of vertebrate animals not covered by the Regulation
and cold-blooded invertebrate animals (similar to the provision in WATO 97).

We have sought to provide comprehensive guidance on the Regulation which
is available online and can be provided in hard copy on request to the
Transport and Markets team (contact details can be found on page 1).

3.8      Enforcement, Offences, Penalties and Appeals

Consultation Questions

•     Do you agree with the way forward outlined for enforcement? If not what
      additional measures would you like to see and why?
•     Are there any issues of concern should a system based on the above be
      introduced? If so, please specify.
•     Do you agree that no appeal mechanism is required for vehicle approval?


Enforcement is carried out by Local Authorities and the SVS. The Regulation,
like the current EU Directive (implemented by WATO 97), has common
objectives that have not changed – animals must not be caused any
unnecessary suffering, animals must be fit for their intended journey and
vehicles must be suitable. We did not plan to increase the time spent on
enforcement as this would take resources away from other areas of animal
health and welfare, but we wished to make better use of the time and effort
by, for example, targeting enforcement by risk assessment.

Two thirds of respondents were in agreement with our proposals for
enforcement. However, 22% were not. Most of these were welfare bodies
who felt that higher levels of enforcement were needed in terms of animal
welfare. The remainder were neutral who offered suggestions such as clearer
advice for enforcers.

We proposed a simpler, more rapid system for appeals using an appointed
person (e.g. a senior SVS officer) who would deal with the appeal. 73% of
respondents had no issues of concern with this proposal. Amongst the
concerns raised were a simpler, quicker system being more open to abuse,
issues of proportionality and more unnecessary bureaucracy.

Our proposed appeals mechanism did not cover vehicle approvals. Just over
half of respondents disagreed with this proposal. This number did so quite
vociferously with many saying that a lack of an appeals system could be
damaging for business and a possible human rights abuse.

Defra response

The majority of respondents agree with the move to smarter, risk based
enforcement. The wish to see additional resources put into animal welfare is
understood but to do so would take money and enforcement away from other
important areas protecting both animal health and welfare and protecting
human health. We, and enforcers, will monitor non compliances recorded
under the Regulation and will look to target any problem areas. We have
been discussing the approach to sensible and even enforcement with Local
Authority representatives.

We will take care to be fair and proportionate in considering and imposing any
regulatory action. If appellants feel they have been unfairly treated, they have
recourse to Judicial Review.

We took on board the call for the need to include a provision for an appeals
system for vehicle inspection and approval.

3.9       Guidance and Publicity Arrangements

Consultation Questions

•     We wish to provide guidance that can be easily used. How can the new
      guidance be best structured?
•     Can you suggest alternative or additional distribution routes? Are there
      other Government Departments or Defra Agencies that you have contact
•     Do you have any evidence contrary to the Farm Practices Survey to
      suggest that a significant proportion of Farmers would find the over 8 –
      hour leaflet helpful?
•     For the non-farmed sectors, can you suggest any alternative approaches
      to get the message across to your members?
•     What type of guidance would you find particularly helpful?
•     Are there additional publicity mechanisms we should use? What support
      can your organisation offer?


Respondents offered a number of suggestions for guidance structure with the
main requirements being simplicity and the use of plain English. Some bodies
expressed concern that those without web access would be disadvantaged
and thus suggested a need for hard copies to be available. A number of
bodies helpfully offered the use of their websites and journals for
dissemination of information. Others suggested using their industries’ trade
bodies and Government Agencies such as the Marine Coastguard Authority
and CEFAS. Most respondents felt that farmers would find an over-8 hour
leaflet, if made available, helpful. From the non-farm sector, respondents
suggested a number of publicising media such as use of the internet, again,
use of representative bodies’ websites, and relevant trade journals. Most
respondents felt that species-specific guidance would be the type most

Defra response

Our communications strategy to disseminate and publicise information on the
Regulation has comprised a number of differing strands:

      •   A publicity leaflet and poster were distributed to livestock markets,
          auctioneers, Animal Health Divisional Offices and to a number of local

      •   ADAS ran a series of road shows at a number of venues up and down
          the country. Using livestock transport specialists, the road shows
          provided an opportunity for animal transporters to discuss the
          Regulation in depth.

     •   A press release and advertisements were placed in key industry

     •   Advertising banners were placed on industry stakeholder websites.

     •   A series of species-specific information leaflets are being produced.

For those without access to the internet, hard copies of guidance are available
on request from the Transport and Markets team. We will be looking at how
those with literacy difficulties can be assisted in understanding the new
requirements of the Regulation.

4.       Government Position and Way Forward

The Regulation comes into effect on 5 January 2007 and the necessary
secondary legislation required to support it in England will come into effect on
the same date (the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 – SI

Comprehensive guidance has been prepared on how the Regulation will be
applied in the UK. This can be found on our website at:

This guidance will be kept under review and developed as necessary in the
early stages of the Regulation’s application as we receive feedback from
stakeholders and learn from experience

The Regulation is due to be reviewed in 2011. We intend to monitor how
effective the Regulation has been to implement and operate (in particular the
use of derogations) and consider any discrepancies it might throw up. This
information will provide us with evidence to feed into the 2011 review.

                                                           ANNEX I

List of Respondents

Animal Defenders International
Arab Horse Society
Ark Group
Association of Circus Proprietors of GB
Association of Show and Agricultural Organisations
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Assured British Meat
Ayshazen Cats (cat club)
Ray Baker (hobby breeder)
Paul Barham (hobby breeder)
Birdman Cat Club
Malcolm Bowey (horse transporter)
British Deer Society
British Driving Society
British Egg Industry Council
British Equestrian Federation
British Equine Veterinary Association
British Goat Society
British Horseracing Board
British Horse Society
British Pig Society
British Poultry Council
British Show Hack, Cob and Riding Horse Association
British Trout Association
Georgina Brown (hobby breeder)
Bucks, Oxon and Berks Cat Society (x2 – responded twice)
Burmese Cat Club
Cage and Avery Birds Magazine
Catholic Concern for Animals
Cats Protection
Central England Animal Health and Welfare Panel
Rosemary Clarke (cat breeder)
CMI Certification
Coarse Fish Farmers and Traders Association
Compassion in World Farming
Country Land and Business Association
Dartmoor Commoners’ Council
Department of Trade and Industry
Department for Transport
Dogs Trust

Euro Rep
Exotic Cat Club
Farm Animal Welfare Council
Feline Advisory Bureau
Felis Britannica (cat club)
Game Farmers’ Association
Ronald Gardner (Veterinarian)
General Council of the Cat Fancy
Gypsy Council
Gwynedd Cat Club
Jacqui Hamley (cat breeder)
Ian Hendcliffe
Highways Agency
HM Prison Service
Hobberdy Burmese (cat club)
Honpuss Burmese and Asian Cats
Houghton Parkhouse
Humane Slaughter Association
International League for the Protection of Horses
Institute of Fisheries Management
Kennbury Asians & Burmese (cat club)
Kennel Club
Michelle Kingsland (hobby breeder)
Lingcomb Birmans (cat club)
Judith Lister (hobby breeder)
Livestock Auctioneers Association
Anne Madden (cat breeder)
Julie Magnus Racehorse Transport
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Merry Dancer Cats (cat club)
Meat and Livestock Commission
Susan Moreland (Veterinarian)
Eric Moss (cattle breeder)
National Bengalese Fanciers Association (cat club)
National Consumer Federation
National Ferret Welfare Society
National Greyhound Racing Club
National Pig Association
National Sheep Association
NBA Cat Club (x2)
Ness Bird VN
National Farmers Union (x2)
Norwich and District Goat Club
Novice Breeder Advice Group (x 2)
Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association

Papagena Burmese (cat club)
Parrot Society
Pet Care Trust
Stephen Pouncey
Peer Pratt (ornamental fish breeder)
Prindjoy Birmans (cat club)
Pete Quinlan (hobby breeder)
Rare Breeds Survival Trust
Red, Cream and Tortoiseshell Cat Society
Road Haulage Association
Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Ghislaine Sayers (Veterinarian)
John Searle (hobby breeder)
Singapura Cat Club
Small Shepherds Club
Society of Greyhound Veterinarians
Society for the Protection of Aviculture
Soroptomist International
Southdown Sheep Society
Jackie Steele (cat breeder)
Stella Stocker (cat breeder)
The Surrey Goat Club
The International Cat Association
Tonkinese Breed Club (cat club)
Trading Standards Institute
Joyce Tudor-Hughes (cat breeder)
UK Fire Service Urban Search & Rescue Dog Teams (Leicestershire)
UK Hawk Board
United Kingdom Accreditation Service
Nancy & Peter Webster (cat breeders)
Mark Wootten (hobby breeder)
World Pheasant Association
World Society for the Protection of Animals
Yorkshire Cat Club

                                                ANNEX II

Breakdown of Respondents

Category                                        Number
‘Hobby Breeders’ – Individuals & Groups           42
General Trade or Representative Organisations      25
Animal Representative Organisations               24
Animal Rights/Welfare Groups                       14
Government/Public Service Organisations            6
Veterinarians                                      5
Animal Transporters                                5
Commercial Animal Traders/Sellers/Breeders         5
Awarding/Accreditation Organisations               4
Interested Individuals                             2
Anonymous                                          7
TOTAL                                             139

                                                                   ANNEX III

The Six Consultation Criteria

1.    Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12
      weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of
      the policy.

2.    Be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what
      questions are being asked and the timescale for responses.

3.    Ensure that your consultation is clear, concise and widely accessible.

4.    Give feedback regarding the responses received and how the
      consultation process influenced the policy.

5.    Monitor your department’s effectiveness at consultation, including
      through the use of a designated consultation co-coordinator.

6.    Ensure your consultation follows better regulation best practice,
      including carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment if appropriate.


Shared By: