1. YOUR LOGO
Improvement of Animal Welfare
During Long Distance Transport
SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274
CP2 FINAL CONFERENCE
Kurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague
7° May 2014
Harmonization of the Authorization of Control Posts in the EU
Paolo Ferrari CRPA

2. Contents
1. Intro
2. Community criteria for CPs
3. Sources of information on
how CPs are authorised
across EU
4. Outcomes
5. Discussion

3. Intro
1. 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 its
immediate vicinity
2. Enough CPs must be available in all MSs because
when animals have been transported for longer
than the permitted journey time, the official vets
must have the authority to order and must insist
that the animals are taken to a nearby CP,
unloaded and given food, water and rest (FVE,
2001)
3. Especially when emergency situations occur during
night-time or week-ends it often turns out to be
very difficult or impossible to carry out the
necessary unloading (Animals’ Angels, 2013)

4. 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, as
defined in Reg. EC 1255/97 and amended in Reg.
EC 1/2005, seemed to vary across MSs

5. Intro
8. The CP authorisation procedures are decided by
each MS competent authority; the quality of these
instructions were found to range greatly between
MSs from detailed guidance to little or no
instruction for vets working at the CPs
9. CPs are listed by the Commission upon a proposal
of 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)

6. Criteria for CP facilities
1. 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 appropriate
treatment in order to avoid the spreading of animal diseases (EC
1/2005)

7. Criteria for CP facilities
6. 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 appreciable
gap 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)

8. Criteria for CP facilities
11. 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

9. 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 (…)

10. Sources of information on how
CPs are authorised across EU
1. Grey literature
2. LinkedIn social networking
Group 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

11. Outcomes
1. Is there an official procedure to authorise a new CP
in 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Outcomes
7. In your country, are CPs authorised for hosting the
same species structured, equipped and managed
similarly, according to the same standards?
 Yes
NL, HU, HR, RO
DE (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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Discussion – statement 1
EU Guidelines to harmonize CP
authorisation 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 regulations
across EU in an harmonised way

21. Discussion – statement 2
Expert groups of the national CAs
should 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

22. 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

23. Thanks for your attention
SANCO/2011/G3/CRPA/SI2.610274
CP2 FINAL CONFERENCE
Kurhaus, Scheveningen The Hague
7 May 2014