EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Health and food audits and analysis DG(SANTE) FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN THE NETHERLANDS FROM 20 FEBRUARY 2017 TO 24 FEBRUARY 2017 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE ANIMAL WELFARE DURING TRANSPORT TO NON-EU COUNTRIES In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary This audit took place in the Netherlands from 20 to 24 February 2017, as part of the published DG Health and Food Safety audit programme. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to prevent causing any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to animals during long distance transport by road to non-eu countries. In particular the audit sought to identify the measures taken by competent authorities, organisers and transporters to allow the export of live animals to operate smoothly, while ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for the animals concerned. The measures in place provide satisfactory assurances that exports of live animals operate smoothly and that these journeys are correctly planned and carried out in line with animal welfare requirements to prevent causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animals during long distance transport by road. The Dutch policy to carry out inspections of 100% of consignments at the moment of loading enables the competent authority to verify a much wider number of requirements in addition to the animals' fitness for transport. This is considered a good practice. The system in place provides good assurances that there are planned arrangements to provide feed, water and rest to the animals until the final place of destination in the non-eu country and additional assurances that these planned arrangements are fulfilled until the EU border. Additionally, the robust system to issue animal health certificates reduces the risk of animals being detained in a stationary truck at border crossings thus allowing the export of live animals to operate smoothly, preventing rejections or delays on entering non-eu countries. While the control system minimises the probability of unexpected long delays at the EU's external border, these delays may still happen for reasons which are beyond the control of the authorities at the place of departure. In the unlikely event of such delays, animals blocked at the border may suffer from lack of rest, feed and water due to the inadequate assurances of the transporters' contingency plans to meet these needs. Another shortcoming was related to the certificate of approval for vehicles. The risk of unweaned animals being transported in unsuitable vehicles is sufficiently mitigated in the Netherlands by effective controls at the time of loading but may impact journeys starting from another Member State. The report contains recommendations to the Dutch authorities to address the shortcomings identified. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives and scope Legal Basis Background Findings and Conclusions Description of Official Controls Transport Conditions Resting Unexpected Delays at the EU Border Overall Conclusions Closing Meeting Recommendations...12 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation CBR COA CVO EU IBD NCP NVWA RDW SNS Explanation the Dutch Driving Test Organisation (Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen) the Remote Certification Department within the NVWA (Certificeren Op Afstand) Chief Veterinary Officer European Union the Livestock Transport Bureau National Contact Point for issues related to animal welfare during transport. the Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit) the body assigned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs to inspect and approve means of transport for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 Satellite Navigation System III

5 1 INTRODUCTION This audit took place in the Netherlands from 20 to 24 February 2017 as part of the planned audit programme of DG Health and Food Safety. An opening meeting was held with the Dutch competent authorities on 20 February At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the audit were confirmed by the audit team and additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was requested. The audit team comprised two auditors from DG Health and Food Safety and was accompanied throughout the audit by representatives from the central competent authority the Netherlands Food and Consumer Products Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit NVWA) within the Ministry of Economic Affairs. 2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objective of the audit was to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the measures in place to prevent causing any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to animals during long distance transport by road to non-eu countries. In particular the audit sought to identify the measures taken by competent authorities, organisers and transporters to allow the export of live animals to operate smoothly, while ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for the animals concerned. The scope of the audit included: National measures and, where relevant, any national policies on the welfare of animals during transport, in particular in the context of exports from the EU; and Official controls on the welfare of ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) during transport to non-eu countries, including the system for certifying the health status of such animals, and their outcomes in particular controls prior to and after the journey; and Other activities having an influence on the welfare of ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) intended for transport to non-eu countries. A review of documents relevant to reach the objectives of the audit for the period January 2015 February The main legal requirements are included in: Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations; Council Directive 96/93/EC on the certification of animals and animal products, where applicable; Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. 1

6 In pursuit of the objectives, the following meetings were held: Meetings with Competent Authorities Competent authority Site visits Comments Central 2 Opening and closing meetings Other 3 Visit to the competent authorities involved in: checking journey plans; carrying out retrospective checks; communication with other Member States on issues related to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 Transporter's premises 1 Visit to a transporter involved in the transport of live animals to non-eu countries Vehicle Approval Centre 1 Visit to the body responsible for the testing and approval of livestock vehicles for long journeys Assembly Centre 1 Visit to an assembly centre from where consignments of cattle depart to non-eu countries and meeting with a transporter 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and in particular Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, and Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. EU legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex 1 and refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. 4 BACKGROUND Enforcement of animal welfare requirements during transport remains a challenge. There have been several reports to the Commission of long delays of live animal transports at the EU land border with Turkey. After a sudden drop in exports to Turkey between 2012 and 2013 this trade has been increasing significantly in recent years. The number of live ruminants exported to Turkey in 2016 (more than 290,000) has surpassed the numbers for 2011 (more than 280,000). In response to these reports, complaints from non-governmental organisations and following a meeting with national contact points, the Commission services wrote to all Member States in June 2016 urging them to improve official controls in this area. 2

7 The letter emphasised the importance of proper planning of long distance journeys, with particular focus on: adequate contingency planning; temperature requirements; and the provision of sufficient water, feed and bedding for the duration of these long journeys. To follow up on this issue, DG Health and Food Safety planned a series of audits for 2017 and 2018 to identify activities that are suitable and effective in improving animal welfare during long distance transport to non-eu countries. The Commission will share the outcomes from these audits with all Member States in order to help with the uniform application of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. This audit to the Netherlands is the first of the series. Long journey exports from the Netherlands in amounted to approximately 1,127 1,115 of these were cattle and 12 were sheep and goats. Most of these exports were to Russia: 71% of live cattle consignments in 2016 and approximately 51% for The last exports of live cattle from the Netherlands to Turkey were in March After that date, there was no longer an agreed health certificate for Turkey and therefore this activity was suspended. The system for official controls on animal welfare during transport is the same regardless of the destination country. According to data recorded in the Commission's Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES), the majority of transporters involved in 2016 long journey exports from the Netherlands were from Hungary (36%), the Netherlands (35%) and Poland (24%). The remaining transporters were from five other Member States. Of these consignments 91% were checked against animal welfare requirements somewhere along the journey. These checks didn't reveal any animal welfare incidents. A previous audit to the Netherlands (report reference nr: DG(SANCO) 2010/8400) concluded that the competent authority carried out extensive controls on the protection of animals during transport, had a dedicated office for issues related to animal welfare during transport. Auditors from DG Health and Food Safety and national experts from other Member States have identified good practices on official controls on transport during this, and later 1, visits to the Netherlands. The country profile of the Netherlands describes the structure of the competent authorities and the organisation of official controls on animal welfare during transport. It is accessible at: 1 See also the overview report DG(SANCO) on Study visits to improve Member State controls on animal welfare during transport 3

8 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 DESCRIPTION OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS Legal requirements Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Articles 11, 14, 15, 17 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Directive 96/93/EC. Findings 1. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs assigned the inspection and approval of means of transport for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to the RDW. This body is also responsible for licensing vehicles and vehicle parts, registration, information provision and issuing vehicle certificates of approval. 2. Drivers' certificates of competence are issued by the Dutch Driving Test Organisation (Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen CBR). 3. The NVWA has centralised the task to perform pre-screening checks on the journey plans that are submitted by the operators. This pre-screening activity includes administrative checks on documents submitted for issuing animal health export certificates. The Remote Certification Department (Certificeren Op Afstand COA), another centralised Unit within the NVWA, is carrying out the pre-screening administrative checks for animal health export certificates for cattle to Russia as part of a pilot project. 4. Retrospective checks of these journeys are performed by NVWA's Livestock Transport Bureau (IBD). 5. The table below summarises the activities carried out by the Dutch competent authorities on the transport of animals over long journeys to non-eu countries: Necessary certification before a journey can be planned NVWA: CBR: RDW: Transporter authorisation Driver's certificate of competence. Vehicle approval certificates for long journeys. Planning a Journey (done by the organiser and submitted electronically to the NVWA) Evaluation of the organiser's request to export animals NVWA: COA: Journey plan and relevant documents. Animal health documentation for pilot project on exports of cattle to Russia. 4

9 Prior to departure NVWA: Vehicle inspection; Inspection for fitness for transport and transport conditions; Signing animal health certification; Stamping the journey log. Retrospective checks IBD: Returned journey logs; Returned Satellite Navigation System (SNS) data. Communication of issues with other countries and actors NVWA: National Contact Point for issues related to animal welfare during transport (NCP). Trade National Contact Point for issues related to animal health. 6. Documented procedures are available for the authorisation of transporters, vehicle approval, animal health certification for export including the principles of Directive 96/93/EC, evaluation of journey plans, inspection prior to departure and retrospective checks. These procedures are detailed enough and suitable in achieving the objectives of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/ TRANSPORT CONDITIONS Legal requirements Articles 14, 15, 18 and 26 and Chapters II, III and VI, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Findings 7. Fitness for transport is mandatorily checked by the NVWA at the moment of loading for 100% of consignments destined to non-eu countries 2. The NVWA uses this opportunity to carry out controls on the vehicles' conditions at the same time. The NVWA stated that its intention in carrying out these checks is to provide additional assurances on the good conditions in which animals are exported from the Netherlands (see also Paragraph 4 of the Background and Finding 20). This is considered a good practice and goes beyond the requirements of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1/ In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that "as of 1 June 2017, it is no longer our standard policy to check 100% of transports for intra EU trade and exports at the moment of loading. For animals for which individual identification with digital eartags is in place, checks may take place within 24 hours before departure. Certain animal categories are exempted and still need to be checked at the time of loading. These include unweaned calves and lambs, sows and piglets for slaughter, horses for slaughter and end-of-career milking cows. For long journeys, the vehicle needs to be present at the time of inspection." 5

10 8. The validity and correctness of the transporters authorisations and the vehicles' approval certificates are verified as part of the NVWA's pre-screening administrative checks that are performed prior to scheduling the mandatory official on-site inspection at loading. Additionally, the NVWA checks drivers' certificates of competence during the on-site inspection and confirms that the vehicle(s) and driver (s) present are the same that were indicated in the planning and checked at pre-screening (Article 14(1)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005). 9. Regarding the vehicle's conditions: the full range of checks carried out by the RDW for a new vehicle approval is also performed when renewing the 5-year approval (Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005); the Dutch certificates of approval currently do not distinguish which vehicles are appropriate for weaned and which are appropriate for unweaned animals, contrarily to what is required by Chapter IV Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. This implies that unweaned animals may be transported on vehicles that are inadequate for this category of animals with the biggest risk being the inability to access liquids due to unsuitable drinking devices (Point 2.2 of Chapter VI, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005). The NVWA indicated that it intends to split the vehicle approval on this basis: one approval for "calves younger than 2 months" and another for "calves over 2 months" (similarly, one for "lambs and kids younger than 6 weeks" and another for "lambs and kids over 6 weeks). This was supposed to start after 1 January 2017, but has been delayed; the new start date is 1 July 2017; the stocking density (Point 2.1 Chapter III, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005) is checked during loading; the presence of an official at 100% of loadings also allows the NVWA to check: o maintenance conditions of the vehicle and space above the animals (Points 1.1. and 1.2 of Chapter II, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005); o appropriate bedding for the animals and suitability of the vehicle's drinking devices for the species and categories of animals that are to be transported (Points 1.2 and 2.2 of Chapter VI, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005). 10. Regarding temperature: the temperature at the place of departure has to be taken into consideration during the mandatory on-site inspection at the time of loading; checks are not carried out on the predicted temperatures at the place of destination when evaluating the journey plan. These checks had been suggested by the Commission in its letter to all Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) of 28 June 2016; the IBD carries out retrospective checks on temperature records when the transporter submits these with the SNS data (see also Finding 16). 11. Since there were very little issues concerning transport conditions in live animal exports, the audit team also reviewed several examples of communication of these issues regarding intra-eu consignments of live animals (Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 6

11 1/2005). In these examples the Netherlands was both on the receiving side and on the notifying side with the other Member States. These communications have generally resulted in investigations from both sides and mainly concerned: stocking densities of pigs and their fitness for transport; poor welfare of poultry arriving at slaughterhouses. Conclusions on transport conditions 12. The Dutch policy to carry out inspections of 100% of consignments at the moment of loading enables the competent authority to verify a much wider number of requirements in addition to the animals' fitness for transport. The official verification, at the moment of loading, on the adequacy of the vehicles, bedding, handling, space allowances and ventilation, in addition to fitness for transport, contribute to prevent causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to animals during long distance transport by road. This high frequency and type of checks at loading is considered a good practice and it goes beyond the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 under which it is not mandatory to carry out systematic checks at the moment of loading. 13. The current system for certification of approved vehicles does not sufficiently distinguish the types of vehicle appropriate for weaned and unweaned animals. As a result unweaned animals may not have access to liquid and be if necessary fed during long distance journeys. The risk of unweaned animals being transported in these unsuitable vehicles is sufficiently mitigated in the Netherlands by systematic controls at the moment of loading. However, this shortcoming may negatively impact journeys starting from another Member State, where the suitability of the vehicles may not be systematically verified at the moment of loading as in the Netherlands. 5.3 RESTING Legal requirements Articles 14, 15, 19, 25 and 26 and Chapter V, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Findings 14. It is part of the national animal welfare ambition to reduce as much as possible the number of hours of transport for animals (maximum of 8hours or 500km). In addition the Netherlands currently does not allow the transport of cattle, sheep and goats for slaughter to non-eu countries. Therefore, in the case of these species, only breeding animals may be exported. Exceptions are made for EU-harmonised export certificates. 15. Regarding the organiser's plans to rest the animals during the journey and provide them with feed and water (Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005): 3 Judgement of the European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 Case C 424/13. 7

12 the journey plan has to be until the final place of destination in the non-eu country, as indicated by the Zuchtvieh judgement 3. This is checked as part of the pre-screening administrative checks that are performed prior to scheduling the mandatory official on-site inspection at loading; a detailed route map (from a specific internet site identified as being the closest to reality for vehicles transporting live animals) including all the planned stops, and booking confirmation of the control post(s) and, if applicable, of the livestock vessel(s) has to be submitted with the journey plan, as additional evidence of proper planning of the journey. This information is used at the pre-screening stage to check that the journey plan is realistic and satisfies the requirements of Chapter V, Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, and has been identified as good practice; the NVWA indicated that the most common gaps detected during these pre-screening administrative checks are incomplete journey plans and missing proof that the livestock vessel for the sea part of the journey, where applicable, was confirmed; the procedure for validating journey plans involving a livestock vessel did not include a check on the vessel's approval certificate (Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005). This was identified by the audit team when reviewing a specific case. The NVWA solved the immediate problem by contacting the National Contact Point of the Member State that had authorised the vessel and informed the audit team that the instructions would be amended to include also this verification; one of the transporters met by the audit team indicated that, when transporting animals from other Member States to Turkey, his journey plans take into account at least six hours for controls at the Turkish border. 16. Regarding retrospective checks to verify the travelling and resting times to provide water, feed and rest to the animals: for journeys departing from the Netherlands, 100% of journey logs are requested to be returned, and are checked; 10% of SNS data are also requested and checked (Articles 15(1) and 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 respectively); if it makes any findings during checks on the completed journey log the IBD indicated that, depending on the type of finding, it then asks for the SNS data for that journey; the audit team saw samples of requests to foreign transporters to return completed journey logs and SNS data: o Failure to return the journey log or SNS data within the stipulated deadline is followed by a maximum of two reminders to the transporter after which a letter is sent to the NCP of that country requesting that the SNS data is provided, and the transporter is also put in copy (Dutch transporters are instead subject to an administrative fine of up to 1,500); o In 2016 the German and Polish NCPs were contacted to obtain SNS data once and twelve times respectively. The NVWA indicated that both NCPs collaborated on these requests, and obtained and provided the requested data. the checks on both the returned journey log and the SNS data detected noncompliances, and were well targeted and comprehensive. The NVWA indicated that 8

13 journey log information and SNS data is often only provided for the EU part of the journeys and that, due to legal uncertainty, it does not take action to obtain the missing information concerning the non-eu parts. Conclusions on resting 17. The system in place provides satisfactory assurances that there are planned arrangements to provide feed, water and rest to the animals until the final place of destination in the non-eu country to prevent causing unnecessary suffering to animals during long distance transport by road. The high number of retrospective checks, supported by the communication between NCPs, provides additional assurances that these planned arrangements are fulfilled for the EU part of the journey. 5.4 UNEXPECTED DELAYS AT THE EU BORDER Legal requirements Articles 3 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Directive 96/93/EC. Findings 18. Unless there is an EU-harmonised export health certificate, it is the policy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs to authorise the export of live ruminants only to those countries with which a template health certificate has been agreed upon. The declarations to be made in these health certificates are agreed between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the importing country(ies) thus avoiding that consignments of live animals are blocked at the EU border due to insufficient or inadequate animal health assurances. Organisers, transporters and officials all have online access to the specific details for issuing these agreed health certificates for each species and for each country of destination. 19. The Dutch industry has agreed with the NVWA that if there will be exports to Turkey, and taking into account the known operational delays at this land border crossing, these will not take place during July and August to avoid excessively high temperatures at this time of year. 20. The official veterinarian demonstrated, during a loading inspection, that the online system in place provided the certificates and additional information necessary to sign the veterinary health certificates, in line with the principles of Directive 96/93/EC. The supervising local senior official veterinarians provide the necessary expertise and support. 9

14 21. Between 2015 and 2016 the National Contact Points for animal welfare and for trade were notified of only three consignments (less than 0.3%) having problems when entering the non-eu countries and suffering unexpected delays at the EU border. : The notifications were made by animal welfare non-governmental organisations or the transporters concerned and, in some cases, also by the competent authority of the non-eu country (goats to Turkey, cattle to Russia and goats to Libya). The problems with these consignments were not due to the accompanying certificates issued by the NVWA. In all three cases the NVWA and the Ministry of Economic Affairs reacted to the notifications to remedy the situation and enable the journeys to continue. 22. The contingency plans (Article 11(1)(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005) put in place by the two transporters met by the audit team contained essentially general principles of how to deal with possible emergencies including traffic delays, vehicle breakdowns and sick or injured animals. : The contingency plans did not deal with unexpected long delays at the EU border in particular on how to obtain and provide bedding, feed and water to animals at this location. This is not requested by the NVWA when evaluating the transporters' contingency plans; The NVWA is also not requesting a specific contingency plan as suggested by the Commission in its letter to all CVOs of 28 June 2016 in relation to animals transported for long journeys to non-eu countries; Arrangements to meet the animals' needs in the case of unexpected long delays at the EU border are therefore not in place contrary to Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Conclusions on unexpected delays at the EU border 23. There is a robust system to issue animal health certificates which provides a strong support for official veterinarians tasked with signing health certificates. This allows the export of live animals to operate smoothly, preventing rejections or delays on entering non-eu countries. The risk of animals being detained in a stationary truck at border crossings is thereby reduced. 24. Contingency plans, set up by transporters as required by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, do not include measures to provide bedding, feed and water to the animals in the eventuality of unexpected long delays at the EU border. There are therefore inadequate assurances that the needs of animals blocked at the border can be met and that these animals are not caused unnecessary suffering. 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The measures in place provide satisfactory assurances that exports of live animals operate 10

15 smoothly and that these journeys are correctly planned and carried out in line with animal welfare requirements to prevent causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animals. The Dutch policy to carry out inspections of 100% of consignments at the moment of loading enables the competent authority to verify a much wider number of requirements in addition to the animals' fitness for transport. The official verification, at the moment of loading, on the adequacy of the vehicles, bedding, handling, space allowances and ventilation contribute to prevent causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to animals during long distance transport by road. This is considered a good practice. The system in place provides good assurances that there are planned arrangements to provide feed, water and rest to the animals until the final place of destination in the non-eu country. There are additional assurances that these planned arrangements are fulfilled until the EU border. Additionally, the robust system to issue animal health certificates reduces the risk of animals being detained in a stationary truck at border crossings thus allowing the export of live animals to operate smoothly, preventing rejections or delays on entering non-eu countries. While the control system minimises the probability of unexpected long delays at the EU's external border, these delays may still happen for reasons which are beyond the control of the authorities at the place of departure. In the unlikely event of such delays, the transporters' contingency plans do not provide adequate assurances to meet the animals' needs of rest, food and water when blocked at the border and that these animals are not caused unnecessary suffering. Another shortcoming is related to the certificate of approval for vehicles. Currently the certificate does not indicate whether a vehicle is suitable for the transport of unweaned calves. As a result unweaned animals may, for example, not have access to liquid and be if necessary fed during long distance journeys. The risk of these animals being transported in unsuitable vehicles is sufficiently mitigated (in the Netherlands) by effective controls at the moment of loading. However, this shortcoming may impact journeys starting from another Member State, where the suitability of the vehicles may not be systematically verified to the same extent as in the Netherlands. 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 24 February 2017 with representatives of the competent authorities, at which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team. 11

16 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The competent authorities are invited to provide, within 25 working days of receipt of the report, an action plan containing details of the actions taken and planned, including deadlines for their completion, aimed at addressing the recommendation set out below: No. Recommendation 1. To update the current system for certification of approved vehicles so that the vehicles appropriate for weaned and unweaned animals are properly identifiable from the vehicle approval certificates issued in accordance with the template in Chapter IV, Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Recommendation based on conclusion 13. Associated finding: 9, 2 nd bullet. 2. To ensure that contingency plans of transporters exporting live animals include measures to meet the animals' needs for bedding, feed and water in the eventuality of unexpected long delays at the border as required by Articles 3(a) and 11(1)(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Recommendation based on conclusion 24. Associated finding: 22. The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at: 12

17 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Reg. 1/2005 OJ L 3, , p 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 Reg. 882/2004 OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Dir. 96/93/EC OJ L 13, , p Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal products