REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport
Date: 2011-11-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal welfare, protection of animals, satellite navigation, single market, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 10.11.2011 
COM(2011) 700 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during 
transport 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during 
transport 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  EU  has  had  rules  governing  animal  welfare  during  transport  since  19771.  The 
rules aim to eliminate technical barriers to trade in live animals and to allow market 
organisations  to  operate  smoothly,  while  ensuring  a  satisfactory  level  of  protection 
for the animals concerned.  

The EU legislation was last updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the 
protection  of  animals  during  transport2  (hereinafter  "the  Regulation"),  which  was 
adopted  on  22  December  2004.  Article  32  of  the  Regulation  states  that  "the 
Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on 
the impact of this Regulation on the welfare of animals being transported and on the 
trade flows of live animals within the enlarged Community. In particular the report 
shall take into account scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals, and the 
report  on  the  implementation  of  the  navigation  system  (…)  as  well  as  the  socio-
economic implications of this Regulation, including regional aspects". This report is 
the Commission's response to this request.  

This report aims to provide a state of play as regards the impact of the Regulation on 
animal  welfare  and  intra-Union  trade;  its  socio-economic  and  regional  implications 
as well as the implementation of the navigation systems, as requested in point 4.3 of 
Chapter  VI  of  Annex  I  to  the  Regulation.  Furthermore,  the  report  contains 
information in relation to enforcement of the EU legislation. 

The  Regulation  applies  to  the  transport  of  vertebrate  animals  transported  in 
connection with  an economic activity. However, since the details of the Regulation 
mainly  concern  farmed  animals  such  as  cattle,  pigs  and  horses,  the  content  of  this 
report mainly focuses on the transport of these animals. It does not take the transport 
of other species, such as dogs and cats, poultry, animals kept for scientific purposes, 
and exotic species, into account.  

1 

2 

Council  Directive  77/489/EEC  of  18  July  1977  on  the  rules  on  the  protection  of  animals  during 
international transport; O J L 200, 8.8.1977, p. 10-16.  
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport 
and  related  operations  and  amending Directives  64/432/EEC  and 93/119/EC  and  Regulation  (EC) No 
1255/97 OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Specific problems and actions concerning the transport of fish - identified under the 
Commission  Strategy  for  the  Sustainable  Development  of  European  Aquaculture3  - 
should also be examined in the context of the present report. 

A glossary of technical terms is provided at the end of this Report. 

3 

COM (2009) 162 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

IMPACT OF THE REGULATION 

Council Regulation No (EC) 1/2005 entered into force in January 2005 and became 
applicable on 5 January 2007. To establish if, and if so to which extent, the adoption 
of  the  Regulation  has  had  an  impact  on  the  factors  mentioned  in  Chapter  1  (trade, 
animal welfare etc.) a comparison of the data from before and after the application of 
the Regulation (2007) has been made4. In addition to internal Commission data, the 
main sources of information for this report are the following. 

•  The  "Scientific  Opinion  Concerning  the  Welfare  of  Animals  during  Transport", 
adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in December 20105. 

•  Member States official reports on inspections6. 

•  Official information provided by EU stakeholders.  

•  Commission report on infringements against the social rules in road transport7. 

•  Information gained from formal complaints and infringements proceedings. 

In 2010 the Commission commissioned an external study to assess the impact of the 
Regulation8 9. The final report of the study, including the scope and limitations of the 
study, is published on the Commission website10. 

The findings of the study and the information received from the sources listed above 
have been analysed to identify the general tendencies and impacts that have occurred 
since the application of the Regulation in 200711 and in particular the following:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The impact on intra-Union trade in live animals; 

The regional and socio-economic implications of the Regulation; 

A  comparison  of  the  quality  of  animal  welfare  during  transport  before  and 
after the application of the Regulation; 

The  assessment  of 
into 
consideration  the  scientific  opinion  adopted  by  the  European  Food  Safety 
Authority in December 2010.  

the  requirements  of 

the  Regulation 

taking 

(5) 

An analysis of the use of the navigation systems. 

4 

5 
6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 

Bulgaria and Romania entered the EU in 2007. According to Eurostat, those Member States account for 
approximately 2,5 % of the total EU-production of meat and the impact of this enlargement on the intra-
Union transport in live animals other than horses, has therefore, in this report, been regarded as minor.  
EFSA Journal 2011; 9(1):1966 [125 pp.]. 
According  to  Article  27  of  the  Regulation  Member  States  shall  submit  annually  a  report  on  their 
inspections in relation to the Regulation. 
COM (2009) 225 final Report from the Commission, Analysing the penalties for serious infringements 
against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States. 
Study  on  the  impact  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1/2005  on  the  protection  of  animals  during  transport, 
SANCO/2010/D5/116733. 
http://www.ibf.be/animalstransport/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/index_en.htm 
The Regulation, except for Article 6(5), applies as of 5 January 2007, cf. Article 37 of the Regulation. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6) 

The level of compliance and enforcement. 

Please  find  a  further  description  of  the  items  listed  above  in  the  following 
subchapters; 2.1 – 2.6.  

2.1. 

The impact on intra-Union trade in live animals 

Each year large numbers of live animals are transported between Member States, and 
to  and  from  third  countries12.  There  are  several  reasons  for  this  trade  and  the  trade 
patterns  have  been  maintained  after  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and  the  EU-
enlargement 200713. Movements of animals within Member States are not subject to 
a  compulsory  declaration,  and  therefore  there  is  no  data  on  the  total  number  of 
animals transported within the individual Member States of the EU.  

Data  on  intra-Union  trade  and  import  to/export  from  the  EU  in  live  animals  shows 
that the total number of live animals transported was roughly the same in 2005 as in 
2009.  However,  there  are  some  differences  between  species  as  shown  in  Table  1, 
and  notably  the  number  of  horses  transported  for  more  than  24  hours  decreased 
significantly while the number of pigs transported increased by 70 % during the same 
period. The reasons for these changes have not been analyzed within the framework 
of this report and therefore no firm conclusions can be established.  

Table 1: Total number of live animals transported (intra Union trade and import 
to/export from EU) per species 2005 and 2009. 

Source: External report (using data from Traces) 

Cattle 

Pigs 

Sheep  

Total 

Total 

Total 

2005 

2007 

2009 

% change 
2005 - 2009 

3,973,008 

4,222,859 

4,299,255 

+ 8 % 

16,438,637 

21,696,563 

27,802,500 

+ 70 % 

4,209,196 

9,112,233 

4,335,078 

+ 3 % 

Horses 

Total 

176,348 

224,449 

147,122 

- 17 % 

Horses 

> 24 h 

58,224 

67,739 

39,371 

- 33 % 

The  analysing  of  data  on  production  costs  and  market  movements  provided  by  the 
external report have confirmed that one of the main reasons for this trade is still to 
exploit  price  differentials  between  Member  States.  The  cost  of  feed  is  one  of  the 
most  important  cost  factors  in  animal  production,  and  this  cost  varies  between 
Member States and regions. Furthermore, a limited slaughter or processing capacity 
in some Member States as well as the fact that regional production of meat within the 
EU  does  not  equal  regional  consumption,  may  also  encourage  intra-Union  trade  in 
live  animals.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  most  of  the  intra-Union  transport  in 

12 

13 

According  to  the  external  report,  approximately  37  million  live  cattle,  pigs,  sheep,  goats  and  horses 
were transported within Member States and to and from third countries in 2009. In addition, the same 
year more than 1 billion poultry was transported.  
Bulgaria and Romania entered the EU in 2007. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
live  animals  takes  place  between  a  few  Member  States.  Seven  Member  States14 
account  for  60  %  of  the  intra-Union  trade  in  cattle  and  almost  70  %  of  pigs  are 
transported from Denmark or the Netherlands while Germany receives more than 50 
% of all transported pigs.  

There  has  been  an  increase  in  the  total  number  of  consignments  of  live  animals 
between 2005 and 2009 for the import/export and intra-Union trade. The number of 
consignments for both short and long distance transport increased during this period 
while those carrying out very long transport, that require unloading and 24 hours rest 
of the animals before continuing the journey, remained roughly the same. As shown 
in Table 2, approximately 65-70 % of cross-border animal transportation is made up 
by short journeys. 25 – 30 % of the consignments carry out long journeys while the 
very  long  journeys  make  up  5  %.  Those  proportions  have  remained  approximately 
the same when comparing 2005 and 2009. It should be pointed out that even though 
the total intra-Union trade in live animals has not been affected by the introduction of 
the Regulation, no in-depth assessment has been made to measure possible impact on 
individual Member States.  

It should also be noted that according to this data, a number of consignments appear 
to have been carried out without specific indications of travelling time and that this 
number  increased  five-fold  (in  comparison  to  the  total  number  of  consignments) 
when comparing 2005 and 2009. 

Table 2: Number of consignments of live animals15 (Intra-Union trade and import 
to/export from the EU-27) in 2005 and 2009 shown in duration of transport. 

Source: External report (using data from Traces) 

2005 

% of 
consignments 

2009 

% of 
consignments 

315,237 

100 % 

399,988 

100 % 

% 
difference 
2005 – 
2009 
+ 27 % 

214,831 

68 % 

83,513 

26,5 % 

261,387 

114,820 

65,5 % 

+ 21 % 

28,5 % 

+ 37 % 

15,731 

5 % 

16,619 

4 % 

+ 5 % 

1, 162 

< 0,5 % 

7, 162 

< 2 % 

Total 
Travelling 
time 
<8 hours 

8-19/24/29 
hours 
>19/24/29 
hours 
Time not 
available 

As shown in Table 3, the number of consignments carrying horses increased by 31 
% while at the same time the number of transported horses decreased, as shown in 
Table 1. This might be an effect of the requirement introduced by the Regulation to 
separate horses during transport, which would have led to a reduction in the average 
number  of  animals  transported  per  truck.  However,  there  is  not  sufficient  data  to 
confirm this conclusion. 

14 
15 

Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. 
Cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry and horses. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Total number of consignments (Intra-Union trade and import to/export from 
the EU) per species 2005 and 2009. 

Source: External report (using data from Traces) 

Species 

Cattle 

Pigs 

Horses 

2005 

118,142 

85,336 

29,740 

2009 

127,685 

125,889 

38,930 

% difference 

+ 8 % 

+ 47.5 % 

+ 31 % 

2.2. 

The regional and socio-economic implications of the Regulation 

Data suggests that the Regulation has had no particular impact on animal husbandry 
in remote areas, including the outermost regions16, of the European Union. In most of 
the  remote  areas,  animal  production  remains  at  the  same  level  as  before  the 
introduction of the Regulation. For example, based on data on the sheep populations 
in certain remote regions of the EU, such as Scotland and Sicily, no major variation 
in the number of farmed sheep could be found when comparing 2005 and 2009.  

As  shown  in  Chapter  2.1,  there  has  not  been  any  major  change  in  the  number  of 
animals transported cross-border and it could therefore be assumed that there has not 
been any major impact on the industry. However, the Regulation has had economic 
implications, mainly for transport companies. The costs are related to administrative 
measures  and  to  investments  for  upgrading  vehicles  for  long  journeys.  (A  detailed 
description of those measures and the related costs is presented in subchapters 2.2.1 
and 2.2.2.) It appears that transport companies have not been able to pass these costs 
on to other actors in the food business. It could be assumed that this is due to the fact 
that the animal transport sector is highly competitive. Market prices for live animal 
transport  have  remained  constant  or  even  fallen  in  the  period  between  2005  and 
2009. Consequently, the profit margins for transport companies have been reduced. 
As  further  explored  in  Chapter  2.6.1,  differences  between  Member  States  in 
interpretation  and  enforcement  of  the  Regulation  have  lead  to  some  market 
distortions.  When  this  is  considered  in  connection  with  the  reduced  profit  margins, 
we could assume a negative impact on animal transport businesses.  

While acknowledging the increased costs for the animal transport industry, it should 
be  pointed  out  that  the  predominant  factors  that  have  an  impact  on  costs  for 
transporting animals, such as vehicle purchase and costs for labour and fuel, are not 
related to the Regulation. Costs directly related to animal transport are also imposed 
by animal health legislation, such as costs for cleaning and disinfecting of vehicles as 
well as costs for administrative measures, which are described in subchapter 2.2.1.  

16 

Listed  in  Article  349  TFEU  (i.e.  Guadalupe,  French  Guiana,  Martinique,  Réunion,  Saint-Barthélemy, 
Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
According to the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative 
Burdens  (the  High  Level  Group)17,  the  Regulation  has  created  significant 
administrative  costs18.  However,  according  to  the  external  report,  for  most  species 
the increase in costs due to the Regulation is estimated at less than 1 % of the total 
cost  for  transporting  animals.  For  transport  of  horses,  which  represent  the  highest 
increase in costs, the contractor has estimated the raise to be no more than 3 % of the 
total increase of the costs.  

2.2.1.  Costs derived from administrative requirements 

As  the  external  report  reveals,  and  as  shown  in  Table  4,  there  is  a  large  variation 
between Member States in administrative costs to comply with the Regulation. One 
example  is  the  estimated  cost  to  obtain  authorisations  for  transporters19.  The 
discrepancy  as  regards  the  estimated  administrative  costs  caused  by  the  Regulation 
could possibly partly be explained by the fact that the costs calculated by the High 
Level Group appear to include other costs than those related to Regulation (EC) No 
1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport20, while the estimation made by 
the contractor only contains costs incurred by this Regulation.  

Table 4: Average costs for administration. Source: External report21 

Item 

Administrative costs (EU average)

Costs applying approximately every fifth year22 

Vehicle approval 

€ 26 (range € 1.65 - € 30) 

Obtaining authorisation for transporters 

€ 515 (range € 33 – € 605) 

Costs per cargo 

Costs such as drawing up and submitting 
journey logs to the competent authority 

€ 22 (range € 1.37 – € 25.21) 

To decrease the administrative costs, the High Level Group recommends "a move to 
electronic technology, so that Member States can make life easier for businesses by 
facilitating  storage  and  communication  of  data  required  by  administrations"23.  One 
reason  for  introducing  requirements  for  navigation  systems  in  the  Regulation  was 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 

22 
23 

Cf.  Commission  Decision  C(2007)  4063  of  31  August  2007  setting  up  the  High  Level  Group  of 
Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens. 
"Two information obligations – "Drawing up and keeping available transport and planning information" 
and  "Drawing  up  of  a  disinfection  register"  –  alone  account  for  €  1.6  bn.  in  administrative  costs, 
representing  30% of  the  total  administrative  cost  arising from  EU  information  obligations.  Both  stem 
from Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on animal health during transport and related operations", cf. Opinion 
of the High Level Group on administrative burden reduction in the priority area food safety, 4 March 
2009, page 3. 
A transporter will pay 605 Euros in France and 33 Euros in Bulgaria to obtain the same authorisation 
(18 times more). 
One example is that there is no requirement in Regulation 1/2005 to draw up a disinfection register. 
The  sources  of  information  used  by  IBF  to  evaluate  administrative  impacts  are  Eurostat  and  an  IBF 
inquiry. 
Cf. Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation. 
Opinion of the High Level Group on administrative burden reduction in the priority area food safety, 
4 March 2009, page 3. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
indeed  to  make  it  possible  for  the  transport  industry  and  competent  authorities  to 
reduce  administrative  burdens  related  to  the  use  of  journey  logs.  However,  in 
practice  neither  industry  nor  authorities  appear  to  have  taken  full  advantage  of  the 
opportunities to reduce administrative burden provided by the navigation systems, as 
will  be  further  evaluated  in  Chapter  2.5.  As  already  mentioned  there  are  also 
administrative costs incurred under the animal health legislation. Those include costs 
for carrying out animal health checks as well as certification and notification of the 
animals' movements for traceability purposes24.  

The  possibility  to  further  integrate  the  administrative  obligations  stemming  from 
animal  health  and  animal  welfare  legislation  will  be  further  discussed  also  in  the 
course of the current review of EU animal health legislation25. 

2.2.2.  Costs for upgrading vehicles 

Apart  from  administrative  costs,  the  Regulation  introduced  costs  for  upgrading 
vehicles. A summary of the major costs related to the upgrading of vehicles is shown 
in Table 5. These costs also vary, depending on different factors. According to the 
external report, the costs for installing the satellite navigation system  vary between 
250 and 6.000 euro. No in-depth assessment of the reasons for these differences was 
carried  out  in  the  framework  of  this  report.  However,  one  reason  for  those 
differences  seems  to  be  that  in  some  cases  a  navigation  system  more  sophisticated 
than required by the Regulation is installed.  

Table 5: Costs for upgrading a truck with trailer. Source: External report26 

Requirement in the Regulation 

Estimated costs (EU average) 

Insulated roof and drinking devices with 
tank 

Satellite navigation system, including 
temperature monitoring and recording 
system 

Ventilation system 

Total costs for upgrading vehicle 

€ 5 000  

€ 3 800  

€ 2 300  

€ 11 900 

2.3. 

A comparison of the quality of animal welfare during transport before and after 
the application of the Regulation  

Although  no  firm  conclusions  can  be  established,  available  data  indicate  that  since 
2005 the overall quality of animal transport on long journeys has improved, notably 
due to improved vehicles and better handling of the animals. The latter appears to be 

24 

25 

26 

TRACES – (TRAde Control and Expert System) a trans-European network for veterinary health which 
notifies, certifies and monitors imports, exports and intra-Union trade in animals and animal products. 
The  EU-legislation  on  animal  health  is  currently  being  reviewed  and  certain  costs  for  controls  and 
administration related to this legislation may be revised.  
The contractor used the following sources of information as regards these costs: Literature, case studies, 
IBF inquiry, information from The European Livestock And Meat Trading Union (UECBV), Eurostat.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  result  of  the  proper  implementation  of  the  stricter  training  obligations  for 
personnel handling animals, which was introduced by the Regulation 27. 
The data28 supporting these conclusions also show that the percentage of transported 
animals with lameness, injuries, dehydration and exhaustion decreased, or remained 
unchanged, between 200629 and 2009.  

Concerning  the  animals  reported  "dead  on  arrival",  the  numbers  decreased 
significantly from 2005 to 2009. The difference was greater for long transport than 
for  shorter  transport.  There  has  also  been  a  significant  decrease  in  the  number  of 
animals "observed unfit for travel upon arrival at destination".  

Even  though  animal  welfare  in  general  has  improved  after  the  introduction  of  the 
Regulation,  the  available  information  shows  that  severe  animal  welfare  problems 
during  transport  persist.  Most  of  these  problems  appear  to  be  related  to  poor 
compliance  of  some  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  These  issues  are  further 
discussed in Chapter 2.6.  

2.4. 

The assessment of the requirements of the Regulation taking into consideration 
the  scientific  opinion  adopted  by  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  in 
December 2010  

In general, the Regulation is based on a scientific opinion on the welfare of animals 
during transport adopted by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare 
on 11 March 2002. However, provisions in the Regulation which apply to transport 
time, resting time and space allowances were taken from the previous Directive30. In 
2010,  in  order  to  receive  updated  scientific  evidence  and  to  compile  the  present 
report,  the  Commission  requested  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  to 
provide a scientific opinion on the welfare of animals during transport.  
The  EFSA  opinion  was  adopted  on  2  December  201031.  In  the  conclusions  of  the 
opinion, scientists recognise that parts of the present Regulation are not in line with 
current  scientific  knowledge,  and  point  out  specific  areas  where  future  research  is 
recommended.  

In particular, scientists recommend that transport time for horses for slaughter should 
be  shorter  than  that  provided  in  the  Regulation.  Concerning  other  species,  and  in 
particular  sheep,  scientists  found  that  under  very  good  transporting  conditions 
regarding  stocking  density,  straw,  feed,  water  and  ventilation,  the  welfare  of  the 
animals is more dependent on driving quality than on transport time.  

The  findings  of  the  opinion  suggest  that  the  space  allowances  provided  by  the 
Regulation should be recalculated, using a formula that considers the animals' size in 
comparison  to  their  weight.  Furthermore,  according  to  the  opinion,  it  would  be 

27 
28 

29 
30 

31 

According to Article 6(4) of the Regulation. 
Based  on  a  questionnaire  developed  by  the  contractor.  Farmers,  slaughterhouses,  trade  and  transport 
companies,  control  post  owners,  national  competent  authorities,  animal  welfare  groups  and  scientists 
working in the field of live animal transport replied to the questionnaire. 
The data gathered by the contractor on this question does not include information from 2005.  
Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and 
amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC; OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17. 
Scientific  Opinion  Concerning  the  Welfare  of  Animals  during  Transport",  adopted  by  the  European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in December 2010, EFSA Journal 2011;9(1):1966 [125 pp.]. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
appropriate  to  define  specific  requirements  for  certain  elements  of  the  legislation 
such as the internal height of the compartments in road vehicles. 

2.5. 

An analysis of the use of the navigation systems  

the 

information; 

The Regulation introduced a requirement for vehicles approved for long journeys to 
be  equipped  with  a  navigation  system.  When  adopting  this  particular  requirement, 
the Council mandated the Commission to perform a specific detailed analysis of the 
implementation of this new technology. In particular the intention was to improve the 
quality of the controls on travelling times and resting periods while at the same time 
reducing administrative burden. The legislation requires that the system records the 
following 
transporter's  name  and  authorisation  number; 
opening/closing  of  the  loading  flap  and  the  time  and  place  of  departure  and 
destination.  The  recorded  data  shall  be  made  available  to  the  competent  authority 
upon request.  
Information  available32  shows  that  despite  the  fact  that  the  Regulation  has  been 
applied  for  more  than  four  years,  there  are  still  important  differences  between 
Member  States  as  regards  the  implementation  of  the  requirements  related  to 
navigation systems. Most Member States do not yet have a comprehensive approach 
on how to check whether the systems installed comply with the Regulation, and few 
controlling  authorities  use  the  data  collected  via  the  navigation  system  to  carry  out 
checks in accordance with the Regulation. In many cases the data is only considered 
after the competent authority has detected an infringement during a physical control 
before or during transport or at the place of destination. It is therefore concluded that 
the navigation systems are not used in a wide perspective to improve controls. 

2.6. 

The level of compliance and enforcement  

Member  States  are  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Regulation.  The 
Commission  inspection  service  of  Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Consumers 
(FVO,  Food  and  Veterinary  Office),  located  in  Grange,  Ireland,  audits  the  work  of 
competent authorities of the Member States. Reports33 from these audits are the main 
source  of  information  for  the  Commission's  evaluation  of  the  state  of  play  on 
enforcement throughout the EU.  

In  addition,  pursuant  to  Article  27  of  the  Regulation,  Member  States  submit  an 
annual report to the Commission on their inspection activities as well as information 
on  what  actions  the  Member  States  take  to  address  major  deficiencies.  Upon 
agreement  with  each  individual  Member  State,  these  reports  are  published  on  the 
Commission's website34. 

The  reports  from  the  FVO  and  from  the  Member  States  show  that  the  level  of 
enforcement  varies  significantly  between  Member  States.  This  correlates  with  the 
information  gathered  by  several  non-governmental  animal  welfare  organisations35 
and  presented  to  the  Commission  via  official  reports.  Some  major  deficiencies  and 
problems highlighted by these reports are described in the following Chapters. 

32 

33 
34 
35 

Mainly based on a survey amongst the Member States, carried out by the Commission during the first 
semester of 2011; SANCO D5 AN/oj (2011)441562.  
Reports from FVO audits are published on: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/transport/inspections_reports_reg_1_2005_en.htm 
Such as Eurogroup For Animals; Animal Angels; Compassion in World Farming; Eyes on Animals. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.6.1.  Market  distortions  and  other  difficulties  for  operators  due  to  differences  in 

interpretation and enforcement 

The information available confirms that there are significant differences in the way 
Member States interpret some of the provisions of the Regulation. The Commission 
often intervene to provide clarifications of and guidance on certain provisions of the 
Regulation.  While  the  Regulation  applies  to  the  transport  of  all  live  vertebrate 
animals,  most  of  the  detailed  rules  refer  to  livestock.  For  the  transport  of  animals 
belonging to other categories of animals, in particular farmed fish as identified under 
the  Sustainable  Development  of  European 
the  Commission  Strategy 
Aquaculture36, the implementation of the Regulation has therefore encountered some 
difficulties.  

for 

Diverging interpretations of rules may result in market distortions which, combined 
with reduced profit margins and different administrative costs, could put a transport 
business operator in a difficult situation. Furthermore, lack of vigour in enforcement, 
may put compliant transporters at disadvantage. It is thus important to ensure a level 
playing field for the operators. 

2.6.2.  Poor compliance and improper enforcement lead to poor animal welfare 

While  acknowledging  the  importance  of  a  level  playing  field  for  the  operators,  the 
main risk associated with poor compliance and improper enforcement is the risk that 
the welfare needs of the animals are compromised.  

Lack of enforcement and respect of the legal requirements can have severe negative 
impact on animal welfare, and available information shows there are some recurring 
examples of poor compliance such as: 

(1) 

transport of unfit animals;  

(2) 

overstocking of vehicles;  

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

transport  of  animals  in  vehicles  in  which  the  internal  height  of  the 
compartments is inappropriate; 

animals not receiving enough water during the journey and 

animals being transported longer than the maximum allowed travelling time.  

Often, poor compliance appears to be related to improper enforcement. For example, 
according to the Regulation, competent authorities are responsible for checking and 
approving the journey logs before long journeys, to ensure that they are realistic and 
indicate compliance with the Regulation. However, on several occasions unrealistic 
journey logs have been approved. Some such journeys logs unrealistically assume an 
average speed of over 100 km/hour in order to reach the destination as indicated in 
the  journey  log.  This  may  lead  to  journeys  lasting  for  several  hours  more  than  the 
limits provided for in the Regulation. When this occurs along with lack of space and 
lack  of  water,  the  outcome  has  been  proven to  be  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the 
animals.  

36 

COM (2009) 162 final. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
If the Regulation had been properly enforced through the rigorous application of the 
journey  planning  and  travelling  time  requirements,  its  impact  on  the  welfare  of 
animals would have been greater than is shown in Chapter 2.3. 

The above analysis indicates specific and different control needs and responsibilities 
in Member States from which the animals are sent, and those mainly responsible for 
controls on transit or at destination.  

2.6.3.  Penalties and sanctions 

The  competence  to  decide  on  penalties  for  private  individuals  rests  solely  with  the 
Member  States.  They  shall,  according  to  Article  25  of  the  Regulation,  lay  down 
penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and notify information about 
these penalties to the Commission.  

The information provided from the Member States is usually referring to the national 
penal codes. An in-depth comparison of the level of penalties in the Member States 
would  therefore  be  meaningful  only  if  linked  to  a  precise  infringement  or  offence, 
and contrasted against the gravity of the infringement or offence. Such a comparison 
has  not  been  carried  out  by  the  Commission.  However,  estimation  based  on  the 
information  available  shows  significant  variations  when  it  comes  to  the  level  of 
penalties for infringements of the Regulation across the European Union.  

In this regard it should be highlighted that the issue of differences in penalties is not 
limited  to  the  area  of  animal  transport,  but  correlates  to  the  findings  of  the 
Commission report on infringements against the social rules in road transport  37. In 
the report the Commission analyze penalties such as those applied for infringements 
of EU-legislation on maximum driving time, and those related to the tachograph. The 
Commission  considered  the  situation  to  be  unsatisfactory  and  encouraged  Member 
States to provide for more harmonised application of the rules, while "…taking into 
account  the  limits  of  the  competence  that  Member  States  and  the  legislators  have 
decided to give to the Commission."  

37 

COM (2009) 225 final Report from the Commission, Analysing the penalties for serious infringements 
against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the information presented in the report, the following main conclusions can 
be drawn regarding the issues described and analysed in Chapter 2 of the report:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

The Regulation has had beneficial impacts on the welfare of animals during 
transport. 

The  Regulation  introduced  the  requirement  for  vehicles  approved  for  long 
journeys to be equipped with navigation systems. However, it appears that the 
full  potential  of  the  systems  to  decrease  the  administrative  burden  for  the 
industry or to improve official controls is not being utilised. 

According to the available data, the Regulation has not had any impact on the 
volume of the intra-Union trade in live animals.  

The  Regulation  appears  not  to  have  provoked  any  impact  on  the  animal 
production in remote regions. The introduction of the Regulation has lead to 
an  increase  of  transport  costs  but,  likely  due  to  competition  in  the  transport 
sector, this increase has not been evenly distributed along the food chain and 
transport operators are mainly bearing the extra costs.  

According  to the  EFSA opinion38 it appears that parts of the Regulation are 
not fully in line with the current scientific knowledge.  

Enforcement of the Regulation remains a major challenge, partly because of 
differences  in  interpretation  of  the  requirements  and  because  of  lack  of 
controls by the Member States. Furthermore, the quality of monitoring data, 
submitted  to  the  Commission  by  Member  States,  is  often  insufficient  to 
provide  a  clear  analysis  of  the  situation  and  to  allow  planning  of  specific 
corrective measures at EU level. 

As  mentioned  above,  the  Regulation  has  had  beneficial  impact  on  the  welfare  of 
animals during transport. However, it appears that there is room for improvement of 
the  situation.  Those  improvements  could  be  achieved  by  different  actions  and  it 
should be emphasized that for the vast majority of animals falling under the scope of 
the Regulation, the Commission does not see that an amendment would be the most 
appropriate approach to address the identified problems. A steady legal situation will 
allow Member States and stakeholders to focus on enforcement within a stable legal 
framework.  As  regards  the  gap  between  the  requirements  of  the  legislation  and 
available  scientific  evidence,  the  Commission  sees  that,  for  the  time  being,  this  is 
best addressed by the adoption of guides to good practices.  

As  regards  live  fish,  the  Commission  will  launch  a  study  on  the  welfare  of  fish 
during transport, with a view to determining the appropriateness of a revision of the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  to  improve  the  clarity  of  the  legal  framework  on  the 

38 

EFSA Journal 2011; 9(1):1966 [125 pp.].  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transport of live fish for aquaculture operators, in accordance with the Commission 
Aquaculture Strategy. 

To  correct  the  identified  problems,  the  appropriate  enforcement  of  existing  rules 
should  remain  the  priority.  For  that  purpose,  the  Commission  will  consider  the 
following actions for the near future: 

(a)  Adopt  implementing  measures  concerning  navigation  systems  as  provided  by 
Article 6(9) of the Regulation, and establish a simplified version of the journey 
log,  in  accordance  to  point  8  of  Annex  II  to  the  Regulation.  Furthermore  it 
should, in close co-operation with the European GNSS Supervisory Authority 
(GSA)39, be ensured that drivers are informed on how to take the best profit of 
the device.  

Objective:  Improved  harmonisation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation, 
and  improved  animal  welfare  through  increased  possibility  to  control  the 
journey  times,  space  allowance  etc.  of  animal  transports.  This  action  should 
also contribute to a reduced administrative burden for the transporters, but may 
increase the administrative burden for Member State authorities. However, this 
should result in better enforcement of animal transport legislation. 

(b)  Adopt implementing measures concerning the controls to be performed by the 
competent authorities of the Member States, in accordance to Article 27(1) of 
the Regulation. At the same time, the structure of the reporting system should 
be further harmonized.  

Objective:  An  increase  in  the  number  of  inspections,  where  needed,  should 
lead  to  improved  enforcement.  The  information  received  from  the  Member 
State's reports would provide better and more comparable data when based on 
the same structure and would then offer more useful information for the FVO 
when auditing the Member States.  

(c)  The  Commission  will  commence  a  study  on  the  welfare  of  fish  during 
transport.  The  current  work  to  launch  a  study  on  the  welfare  of  fish  during 
stunning will continue. 

Objective:  To  receive  an  overview  of  the  current  situation  regarding  the 
welfare  of  fish  during  transport,  with  a  view  to  identifying  and  addressing 
possible shortcomings of the EU legal framework in this context, in accordance 
with  the  commitments  undertaken  under  the  Commission  Aquaculture 
Strategy. 

(d) 

Increased  co-operation  and  communication  with  the  competent  authorities  of 
the  Member  States  and  stakeholders,  including  Non  Governmental  animal 
welfare  Organisations.  The  contact  points  for  the  Regulation40,  and  existing 

39 
40 

http://www.gsa.europa.eu/ 
Contact  points  for  the  purpose  of  the  Regulation  have  been  communicated  to  the  Commission  in 
accordance to Article 24(2) of the Regulation. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
working groups such as the Advisory group on the Food Chain and Animal and 
Plant Health41, could be used for this purpose.  

Objective:  Collect  and  analyse 
information  on  difficulties  and  share 
experiences  on  possible  solutions  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation.  

(e)  Dissemination of Commission guidance on the interpretation of the Regulation 
and  support  of  the  development  of  guides  to  good  practice,  as  foreseen  in 
Article 29 of the Regulation. Guides could focus on different aspects of day-to-
day  management  that  may  be  problematic  and  would  encourage  best  practice 
that considers the latest scientific knowledge.  

Objective:  Would  cover  some  ambiguities  and  inefficiencies  in  the  current 
animal  welfare 
the 
implementation of the rules. At the same time it would encourage industry and 
other relevant parties to exceed the minimum welfare standards for transporting 
animals.  

improve  harmonisation  of 

legislation  and  would 

Based on the elements above, the Commission invites the European Parliament 
and the Council to discuss the issues highlighted in this Report. 

41 

A description of the Advisory group on the Food Chain and Animal and Plant Health can be found on 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/advisory/index_en.htm 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 

Consignment:  Animals  of  the  same  species,  covered  by  the  same  veterinary  certificate, 
conveyed by the same means of transport and grouped from same place of departure to same 
place of destination.  

Journey:  The  entire  transport  operation  from  the  place  of  departure  to  the  place  of 
destination,  including  any  unloading,  accommodation  and  loading  occurring  at  intermediate 
points in the journey. 

Short (distance) transport: A journey that does not exceed 8 hours. 

Long  (distance)  transport:  A  journey  that  exceeds  8  hours  but  is  shorter  than  a Very  long 
transport. 

Very long transport: A journey that exceeds 19 hours for young animals, 24 hours for horses 
and pigs and 29 hours for adult cattle (described as 19/24/29 in the text). 

Intra-Union trade: Trade between EU Member States. 

EN 

16 

   EN