On this page:

The Welfare of Animals During Transport: Consultation on the Implementation of EU Regulation 1/2005 May 2006

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Section 5: Derogations Available for Vehicles on Road Journeys Between 8-12 hours

Summary

5.1. The Regulation allows Member States to apply certain derogations to road vehicles undertaking some long journeys. In particular, road vehicles undertaking journeys of 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 8-12 hours.

5.2. The derogation provisions are contained in Article 18.4 of the Regulation, and comprise

  • Article 18 (requirement for a vehicle carrying animals over 8 hours to have a certificate of approval),
  • Chapter V, 1.4 (b) (pigs having continuous access to water) and
  • Chapter VI of Annex I (technical standards for vehicles carrying farm animals and horses over 8 hours).

Proposed UK rationale for consideration of derogations

5.3. Informal consultations with key stakeholders on the options available have been held in considering whether the UK should grant derogations. Certain of the new rules are identical or very similar to the current rules. Other potential derogations cover rules where it is considered compliance would not be difficult for UK industry. We need to balance welfare benefits against costs and ease of compliance/enforcement. We therefore concluded that derogation requests would require justifying evidence. Based on these preliminary discussions with stakeholders and subject to the outcome of this consultation, our proposed UK approach is:

(a) We do not propose to derogate where

  • journeys start or end outside of the UK
  • clear welfare benefits ensue from new rules, or
  • the new rules are identical or very similar to the current rules, or
  • where compliance costs are insignificant, or
  • it is felt by stakeholders that compliance will not be difficult

(b) We will 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, or
  • the cost to those affected is disproportionate to the number and type of journeys undertaken (these may be sector specific in some areas), or
  • the new requirements are difficult to enforce effectively, or
  • no clear welfare benefits ensue

Proposed UK derogations

5.4. On the basis of the above criteria and following discussions with key stakeholders, we believe there is a good case to permit certain derogations as described below. We will however re-evaluate options on the basis of full consultation information received .

  • have water constantly available to pigs( Annex I, Chapter V, 1.1.4(b) (in part)) (rationale: although this is a requirement in the current welfare in transport Directive, the industry consider this to be bad for welfare because pigs do not drink in a moving vehicle but play with the drinkers resulting in water flooding the vehicles. Our veterinary advisers agree. What we will require is that water can be made available to pigs when necessary.)
  • have insulated roofs in existing vehicles( Annex I, Chapter VI, 1.1.1 (in part)) (rationale: there is no technical specification for the insulation, therefore enforcement will be difficult; also this is not considered a major welfare benefit for the cost of installation)
  • maintain vehicle temperatures at 0°C or more (Annex I, Chapter VI, 3.1 (in part)) (this affects particularly journeys starting in Scotland - the rationale is that sheep are not housed indoors and are therefore accustomed to sub zero temperatures). However welfare groups have made the point, and we agree, that young animals (who are more likely to be housed) need protection and should not be included in any derogation. There are already provisions preventing the movement of young animals (unless accompanied by their mother) on long journeys (horses - unbroken horses or "unregistered" equidae who are 4 months or younger; calves - 14 days or younger; pigs - 10kg or lighter). However there are no provisions for sheep and goats and we propose that lambs and kids under 7 days old (the 7 days is still under consideration, so views on this would be welcome) should not be moved under this derogation (unless accompanied by their mother).
  • install ventilation, temperature monitoring, and warning systems (Annex I, Chapter VI, 3 (the remainder of this section))(rationale: expensive, specification lacks practical precision, limited welfare benefits in UK climate)
  • install navigation systems (Annex I, Chapter VI, 4) (rationale: expensive, the rules are unclear, and the EU are considering a more detailed future specification anyway)

5.5. There is also an option to grant derogations on a temporary basis. However given the reasoning for the derogations proposed above, we consider that if the suggested derogations are adopted they should remain at least until after the EU Regulation is reviewed in 2011. In terms of what we would put in the legislation, we would grant the derogations permanently, and review their continuing need in due course. This would probably best be addressed as part of the work to be done during the EU review of the new legislation, or as and when new legislative requirements are brought forward e.g. on navigation systems.

5.6. Not taking advantage of the derogations would cost industry approximately £22m in conversion costs. Taking up derogations spares the majority of transporters who do not transport animals on export journeys of over 12 hours from these additional costs.

Q.20 Do you agree with the rationale for granting derogations (paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5)?
Q.21 Do you agree with the derogations proposed (paragraph 5.4)? If not, what evidence can you supply to refute the rationale?
Q.22 Do you agree with the costs assessment and consequent reduction if these derogations are granted (paragraph 5.6)? Further detail is given in the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Appendix 6.

Option to derogate from the certificate of approval for vehicles

5.7. Section 4 of this paper outlines the proposed arrangement for approval of vehicles and the standards they will have to meet. However, Article 18 allows a derogation from approval in the case of road journeys between 8-12 hours. The compliance costs for this element of the regulation is not yet known because an inspection and certification body or bodies has not yet been appointed. However, the activity is likely to be chargeable, once every 5 years, to the farmer/haulier etc owning the vehicle. Costs of compliance generally could also be dependent on whether vehicles need to be adapted or upgraded in order to obtain approval.

Q.23 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.
Q.24 Do you think there is a case for derogating from this requirement for UK journeys between 8-12 hours? And if so, why?
Q.25 Are there particular industry sectors affected that should be granted a derogation as opposed to others? By way of example, should poultry vehicles be exempted from approval given that the containers in which birds are transported affect their welfare more than the vehicle? What about other birds, horses/ponies, cats and dogs, zoo/performing animals. If so, which ones and why?
Q.26 Do you think derogations (or the current requirements) will pose any difficulties in terms of enforcement?
Q.27 What welfare benefits will ensue from approval?

Other derogations available from vehicle standards

5.8. Apart from the derogations outlined in paragraph 5.4 that we are minded to grant, the EU Regulation also allows other derogations from the vehicle requirements, which are contained in Annex 1, Chapter VI of the Regulation. These derogations are also limited to road vehicles undertaking journeys not exceeding 12 hours in order to reach the final place of destination. For ease of reference these remaining requirements are summarised in the table on page 24.

Q.28 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?

In line with setting an evidence and science base policy we welcome factual input that either supports or challenges the available derogation. In order to finalise our Regulatory Impact Assessment, we need to know likely compliance costs for these new requirements and the size of industry affected. The Regulatory Impact Assessment process is destined to measure costs, benefits, environmental impact and social consequences (and these will include animal welfare benefits). Any information you can supply in support of this would be appreciated.

Other Derogations Available - Technical Requirements for Vehicles
(Annex 1, Chapter VI)

Requirement

Comparison to Directive 91/628

SEERAD comments on the rationale

Roof

Para

- light coloured

1.1

New requirement

The welfare benefit is that in hot weather the vehicle stays cooler. Vehicle roofs have many colours. Should the default requirement be white/reflective otherwise enforcement will be ambiguous? Or could "light coloured" be down to judgement of enforcement officer?

Are costs of compliance minimal?

Bedding

- guarantees comfort appropriate to species/numbers of animals, journey time, weather

- ensures adequate absorption of urine/faeces

1.2

No change to current requirement

Need to keep animals clean and comfortable, essential to guarantee welfare, particularly of young animals

Bedding is currently required.

No additional compliance costs as bedding is already a requirement

Feed

- must carry enough feed for the journey

- must be protected from weather and contamination (vehicle and animal)

1.3

No change to current requirement

Feed needs to be carried to ensure feeding intervals are maintained. No additional costs as feed is already a requirement. Only unweaned farm animals/horses and unregistered horses need feeding before 12 hours has elapsed.

Feed needs to be of good quality otherwise animals may not eat it. No additional compliance costs as protection of feed is already a requirement.

Feed Equipment

- on board

- must not be able to be overturned

- when not in use stored separately from the animals

1.4

No change to current requirement

Feed needs to be available when required. No added costs as feed will already be carried where necessary.

Feed needs to be accessible to animals. No added costs as feed containers will already be secured where necessary.

Feed must be appropriately stored so as not to injure the animals. No additional compliance costs as feed is already stored appropriately (e.g. vehicle belly or separate pen)

Water

- vehicle equipped so water can be instantly provided when necessary

2.1

Similar to "equipped for connection"

Sensible enforcement will be needed. Water should be accessible in order to meet animals' needs, which does not necessarily mean "on tap". Transporter needs to demonstrate that they can provide water to animals when needed. Will clarify in guidance that water needs to be provided as necessary for the comfort of the animals.

- each animal must have access

2.1

New requirement

All animals need access to water

- equipment in good working order

2.2

New requirement except for pigs (drinkers maintained in good working order (pigs))

All animals need access to water

- suitably designed and placed for use on board

2.2

New requirement

All animals need access to water. Sensible enforcement will be needed for feeding unweaned animals (e.g. liquid feed).

- tank capacity 1.5% of payload

2.3

New requirement

Is the quantity that the tank carries the important issue? Should water only be carried or supplied that is needed for the animals depending on the species/journey? Is this necessary or practical? What matters is that animals can access water to meet their needs. Could this be accessed elsewhere on the journey? What tank capacity of payload do current vehicles have?

- tank easily drained and cleaned after each journey

2.3

New requirement except for pigs

Animals need access to clean water.

- fitted with a system so that water level easily checked

2.3

New requirement except for pigs

Attendants need to be able to check water levels, but is a "system" needed?

- connected to drinking devices

2.3

New requirement except for pigs

- maintained in good working order

2.3

Not specified but implicit

Ventilation

- Maintain internal vehicle temperature to O° - 35°C

3.1

No change to current requirement

Temperature requirements will be discussed at EU level. UK reasonably temperate. Maintain advice about transporting shorn sheep in winter. Propose derogation for lower temperature end but not upper end.

Partitions

- Horses/ponies to be transported in individual stalls (excl mares/foals)

1.6

New requirement

- must be fitted so that separate compartments may be created

1.7

No change to current requirement

No compliance costs as this is currently required. Welfare benefits to ensuring compartments meet animals needs (or small vehicle which will not need compartments)

- must not prevent free access to water for all animals

1.7

New requirement

This may not be relevant to all vehicles, and water will not always be required - this will depend on species and age of animals. Propose to clarify in guidance.

- must be adjustable to meet animals needs

1.8

No change to current requirement

Propose to clarify in guidance.

Young animals10/unbroken horses

- horses - unbroken horses shall not be transported

1.1.9

New requirement

Unbroken horses are unused to transport and long journeys are detrimental to their welfare.

- horses (excl registered 11) - more than 4 months

1.1.9

New requirement

Young animals should not undertake long journeys as it is detrimental to welfare

- calves - more than 14 days

- pigs - heavier than 10 kg

1.1.9

New requirement

Young animals should not undertake long journeys, as it is detrimental to welfare.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Thursday, May 25, 2006