FINAL REPORT OF A SPECIFIC AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN CYPRUS FROM 29 OCTOBER TO 05 NOVEMBER 2009

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2010) /06/2010,, + EUROPEAN COMMISSION * * HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL * * * * Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANCO) MR FINAL FINAL REPORT OF A SPECIFIC AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN CYPRUS FROM 29 OCTOBER TO 05 NOVEMBER 2009 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RULES ON ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE CONTEXT OF A GENERAL AUDIT 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 report describes the outcome of a specific audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in Cyprus, from 29 October to 5 November The objective of the mission was to verify that official controls are carried out in accordance with the multi-annual national control plan (MANCP) referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and in compliance with Community law. In addition, the audit sought to specifically verify the implementation of EU animal welfare legislation applicable to pig and laying hen farms, animals at the time of slaughter and during transport, and to follow up certain recommendations from FVO report 8037/2006. The report concludes that although few improvements have been noted in official controls since the last mission in 2006, firm action had been taken to stop intra- community trade where the journey times could not comply with EU requirements. Other actions promised by the CCA in response to the majority of FVO recommendations had either not been taken or had been put in place just before the mission. The system of controls for farm inspections is mostly satisfactory and farms were generally compliant. Further training of inspectors is needed to ensure staff have the necessary information and skills to carry out official controls effectively. Furthermore, a lack of suitable enforcement powers results in a tolerance of recurring deficiencies. The CA has taken action to improve the system of controls for animal welfare during transport but has not effectively enforced the requirements relating to the transport of unfit animals to slaughterhouses, nor taken effective remedial action in one slaughterhouse where conditions caused unnecessary excitement to birds and potential suffering. The report makes a number of recommendations addressed to the Cypriot competent authorities, aimed at rectifying the identified shortcomings and further enhancing the control measures in place. I

3 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION 1 3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION 1 4 BACKGROUND 2 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A NIMAL WELFARE ON FARMS FARM INSPECTIONS IN GENERAL INSPECTIONS OF LAYING HEN FARMS L 3 INSPECTIONS OF PIG FARMS INSPECTIONS OF CALF FARMS REGISTRATION OF LAYING HEN FARMS ANIMAL WELFARE DURING TRANSPORT AUTHORISATION OF TRANSPORTERS CHECKS ON TRANSPORT CHECKS OF JOURNEY TIMES ANIMAL WELFARE WITHIN SLAUGHTERHOUSES CHECKS WITHIN SLAUGHTERHOUSES 10 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 11 7 CLOSING MEETING 12 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES 14 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT AHWD CA CCA DA DVO EU FBO FVO MANCP MANRE VS Animal Health and Welfare Division Competent Authority Central Competent Authority Department of Agriculture of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment District Veterinary Office European Union Food Business Operator Food and Veterinary Office Multi Annual National Control Plan Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Veterinary Service III

5 1 INTRODUCTION The specific audit took place in Cyprus from 29 October to 5 November 2009 as part of the planned mission programme of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). An opening meeting was held with the competent authorities of Cyprus on 29 October At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the mission were confirmed by the mission team. The mission team comprised two inspectors from the FVO and was accompanied throughout the mission by representatives from the Veterinary Services of the Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and the Environment, the Central Competent Authority. The Specific Audit formed part of the FVO's planned mission programme and was carried out as a component of a General Audit, as prescribed in Article 45 of 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. This report focuses on the sector specific issues identified during the audit. It does not necessarily include aspects relating to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004; these aspects will be addressed in the subsequent General Audit report. 2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION As part of the general audit, the main objective of each specific audit is to verify that official controls are carried out in accordance with the multi-annual national control plan (MANCP) referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and in compliance with Community law. The more specific objectives of the mission were to evaluate the measures taken to implement the requirements for EU legislation for animal welfare on farms during transport and at the time of slaughter. Progress with the implementation of recommendations from a previous FVO reports was also assessed. In pursuit of these objectives, the following meetings were held and sites visited: Visits Comments Central 2 Opening and final meetings Competent authority District 2 Limassol and Nicosia Rural 1 Sub-office of Limassol district office Farms/ slaughterhouses Laying hen farms Pig farms Calf rearing premises Slaughterhouses: 2 poultry and 1 red meat 1

6 3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION The mission was carried out under the general provisions of Community legislation [1] and, in particular 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. Legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex 1 and refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. 4 BACKGROUND The previous mission concerning animal welfare in Cyprus was carried out in 2006, the results of which are described in report DG (SANCO)/8037/ MR Final (hereafter referred to as report 8037/2006). Report 8037/2006 on all aspects of animal welfare concluded that the system of inspection put in place was overall adequate and was being progressively implemented. Instructions and checklists were largely comprehensive, and were effectively used by the local level. Most deficiencies were detected but the lack of emphasis on practical aspects diminished the way in which certain requirements were checked. Follow up actions were scheduled but they were not always sufficient to ensure that deficiencies were corrected. The CCA indicated that certain actions had been taken or were planned in response to the recommendations of report 8037/2006, and the effectiveness of several of these actions was assessed during the current mission. This report is accessible at: http ://ec.europa. eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm. A detailed description of the Competent Authorities (CA) can be found in the report DG(SANCO)/7708/2008 country profile for Cyprus which is accessible at: http ://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm. 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 ANIMAL WELFARE ON FARMS Farm Inspections in general Legal requirements Article 8(1) of Directive 1999/74/EC requires the CA to implement checks of laying hen farms. Findings Report 8037/2006 recommended that the CCA take measures to ensure the accuracy of the 2

7 certification issued by the CA in relation to animal welfare standards on farms (Article 30 (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004). The mission team found that there had been no improvement in the veracity of certificates issued biannually by the Veterinary Service to the Department of Agriculture for the purposes of confirming compliance with animal health and welfare requirements on laying hen premises. Certificates had been issued on a recurrent basis for premises which the CA had reported did not comply with the requirements for claw shortening devices and beak trimming. Conclusions The CA has not effectively addressed the recommendation from report 8037/2006 to ensure the accuracy of certification in relation to animal welfare standards on farms which is not in compliance with Article 30 (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/ Inspections of laying hen farms Legal requirements Article 8(1) of Directive 1999/74/EC requires Member States to ensure that the CA carries out inspections to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Directive. Findings The CA is carrying out regular inspections on laying hen premises and exceeding the target of one inspection per year. Report 8037/2006 recommended that measures be taken by the CA to adequately assess laying hen farms for deficiencies in the application of requirements relating to the presence of an alarm for artificial ventilation systems; perches, feeders, drinkers, and the capacity in alternative systems; floor slope of cages and practices which restrict access to feed and water. Inspection reports viewed by the mission team indicated that deficiencies on artificial ventilation systems had been detected during inspections and recommendations had been given to operators and documented. Deficiencies in relation to the other items listed above had not been noted in these inspection reports. The mission team visited two cage laying hen holdings, one unenriched and one with both unenriched and enriched cages. Inspections were carried out according to procedures. The stocking densities in both premises were satisfactory but neither inspector was fully proficient in assessing all the requirements relating to Directives 1999/74/EC such as the calculation of useable area in enriched cages, calculation of floor slopes and in relation to Directive 98/58/EC detecting evidence of practices which restrict access to feed and water. However, neither inspector had received specific training in relation to the requirements of Directives 1999/74/EC and 98/58/EC and the inspection checklist gives no guidance on the calculation of maximum capacities of cages, nor had either inspector been instructed to check production and feed records in order to verify if feed and water requirements were adequate. Mortality records on both farms visited were very poor and not in compliance with the requirements 3

8 of point 5 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. Report 8037/2006 recommended that measures be taken by the CA to ensure that the sector is aware of solutions to ensure that establishments meet the requirements for claw shortening devices. The CA have not taken any action to ensure that the sector is aware of solutions to ensure that establishments meet the requirements for claw shortening devices as required in Articles 5(6) and 6(5) of Directive 99/74/EC. None of the farmers met were aware of any such action. A lack of claw shortening devices had been detected on both premises visited and written recommendations to rectify the deficiencies had been made recurrently over a 2 year period of inspections. No action had been taken by the owners to rectify the deficiencies, and the last report on one of the premises had stated that this had been rectified when it had not. Beak trimming over the age of 10 days was also accepted on a recurrent basis by inspectors. Conclusions The CA is carrying out regular inspections to monitor compliance with the provisions of Article 8(1) of Directive 1999/74/EC. Practices to restrict the feed and water requirements of laying hens and not in compliance with point 14 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC had not been detected by the CA and were therefore not addressed. Enforcement action in the laying hen sector is being taken by the CA but is not effective in relation to claw shortening devices and the late beak trimming of birds. Deadlines for remedial action were given by the CA but were not in all cases respected by premises operators and not effectively enforced. Training is not sufficient to ensure inspectors can effectively perform all aspects of official controls on laying hen premises. There has been little improvement since the previous inspection in Inspections of pig farms Legal requirements Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/120/EC requires the CA to carry out inspections on a representative sample of the different rearing systems for pigs. Findings The DVOs visited had carried out inspections on the pig farms in their area at least once per year in accordance with the centrally issued targets. Report 8037/2006 recommended that measures be taken by the CA so that inspectors, when on holdings with pigs, adequately check the all the requirements laid down in Directives 98/58/EC and 2008/120/EC. Report 8037/2006 recommended that measures be taken by the CA to ensure that in relation to holdings with pigs, stronger follow-up measures are taken to ensure that appropriate records are kept of any medical treatment given to animals; that buildings are properly maintained and minimum space allowances are respected. Inspections of the two pig premises seen were performed in a generally satisfactory manner but two deficiencies seen on the two premises were not interpreted as such by inspectors. 4

9 Inspectors in both regions were content to accept operators' views that manipulable material was only required when mixing batches of weaners and not at all stages as required by point 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex 1 to Council Directive 2008/120/EC. No advice to the farmer on the provision of suitable material to fulfil this requirement was offered during the inspection in either region. The CA checklists states that straw or sawdust may be used, but gives no other guidance on this point. The lack of recording of animals/group identification for the administration of veterinary medicinal products in treatment records meant that it was not possible to demonstrate which pigs were being treated with antibiotic pre-mix on farm and therefore if a suitable withdrawal period was being applied. The inspectors were not alert to this deficiency as inspections of medicine records were stated to be carried out by a different part of the VS and the inspectors carrying out animal welfare controls had not received training in this area. The inspection checklist did not provide any guidance for inspectors on how they could satisfy themselves with respect to the requirement in Article 3(7) of Directive 2008/120/EC for the provision of bulky or high-fibre and high-energy food for dry sows and gilts. Overstocking of 10-15% of pigs in various categories was noted on one of the farms visited by the mission team but not initially noted by the inspector. One of the inspectors did not exclude feeders and other obstructions when calculating pen stocking densities. There is no requirement in the inspection checklist to verify if stock persons attending to animals have received instructions and guidance on the relevant provisions of Article 3 and Annex I of Directive 2008/120/EC and this was not requested by the inspectors. In one of the farms visited there were no lights working in the fattening unit contrary to point 3 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. The inspection was not completed as a result. In addition inspectors did not have equipment to measure for various requirements relating to light, sound and climatic parameters. Conclusions The CA is carrying out regular planned official controls on pig premises but inspectors have not received sufficient guidance and training, as recommended in the last FVO report, to enable them to adequately assess minimum space allowances and unobstructed floor area (Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2008/120/EC; the availability of material for manipulation and investigation (point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC); and that appropriate records are kept of any medical treatment given to animals (point 5 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC) Inspections of calf farms Legal requirements Article 7(1) of Directives 2008/119/EC requires the CA to carry out inspections on a representative sample of the different rearing systems for calves. Findings The CA has not been able to meet its inspection targets of one visit to all calf premises per year due to vehicle and staffing constraints. However, the DVOs do prioritise the larger (dairy) premises and 5

10 have visited these with the required frequency. Data on inspections carried out in the sub-offices was not readily available in the DVOs visited, though it had been relayed to the CCA. The mission team visited one calf premises. The general hygiene and structural conditions of the farm were poor and action had previously been requested by the CA in relation to cleaning and disinfection. The inspection on the calf farm was reasonably well carried out even though the inspector had received no specific training to ensure all the requirements of Directives 2008/119/EC and 98/58/EC were assessed during inspections. Non-compliances were not detected in relation to the lack of bedding for calves less than two weeks old and provisions on the flooring and maintenance of the housing. Conclusions The CA is carrying out regular planned official controls on larger calf premises but is not always able to meet their inspection targets due to resource constraints. Inspectors have not received sufficient guidance and training to enable them to assess all the legislative requirements of Directives 2008/119/EC and 98/58/EC during these inspections Registration of laying hen farms Legal requirements Directive 2002/4/EC requires Member States to establish a system for registering every production site covered by the scope of Directive 1999/74/EC. Last paragraph of point 1 of the Annex of this Directive requires the registration of the maximum capacity of an establishment in number of birds present at one time. Findings The procedures for the registration of laying hen premises and the calculation of maximum capacities remain essentially as stated in report 8037/2006 with the following additional information received: a private certification body has been charged with calculating an initial maximum capacity of alternative systems and transmitting this information to the Veterinary Services, who then verify these figures with on the spot inspections. A brief examination of the calculated figures for two premises showed that total area, useable area and area as a result of limiting factors (which were not specified) are calculated and the lowest figure used to arrive at the maximum capacity. The register of laying hen premises complied with the requirements of Directive 2002/4/EC. In one of the laying premises visited the owner had informed the Department of Agriculture (DA) in October 2009 of an increase in capacity seven months after it had taken place. It is the owner's responsibility to inform the DA as soon as any change in capacity or refurbishment takes place so that an updated licence for the marketing of eggs can be issued. The veterinary inspector had visited the farm two months after the change and had noted the increased capacity in the inspection report and informed the DA. The capacity for the premises was correctly listed on the register of laying hens at the time of the mission. 6

11 Conclusions The system in place for the registration of laying hen premises complies with the requirements of Directive 2002/4/EC. 5.2 ANIMAL WELFARE DURING TRANSPORT Authorisation of transporters Legal requirements Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 lays down the requirements for authorising transporters carrying out journeys up to eight hours. In particular, the applicants must demonstrate that they have sufficient and appropriate staff, equipment and operational procedures to comply with this Regulation and that they do not have criminal records of infringements in relation to animal welfare. Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 laying down the provisions for authorising transporters carrying out long journeys, in addition to the documentation mentioned in Article 10, requires further documents, such as the certificates of approval of vehicles, procedures to trace and record the movements of vehicles and to contact drivers, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, and the certificates of competence for drivers and attendants. Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 lays down the requirements for CAs to grant certificates of approval of means of transport by road for long journeys. Findings Report 8037/2006 recommended that in relation to the transport of animals, suitable equipment for loading and unloading animals is available (Chapter I(A)(4) of the Annex to Directive 91/628/EEC), also taking into account Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 Annex I, Chapter II, 2.2. The CCA has not addressed the requirement that suitable equipment for loading and unloading animals is available for means of transport for short journeys. They intend to tackle the issue by checking the movements documents of transporters to firstly distinguish between those transporters making journeys over and below 65km and then to implement the requirements for ramps for those vehicles that travel more than 65km. One vehicle which did not have suitable ramps was seen at the red-meat slaughterhouse visited where due to the lack of suitable unloading ramps steers were hesitant of stepping up the 30cm step onto the docking platform. The CA internal audit on animal welfare in July 2008 recommended that slaughterhouses take measures to ensure that suitable equipment is available for taking injured animals from the lairages to be stunned. The CCA wrote on the 30 th October 2009 to VS staff at the five red-meat slaughterhouses in Cyprus to have formal confirmation if suitable equipment was available. Four out of five slaughterhouses responded by the 4 th November that there was suitable equipment in place. 7

12 Authorisation of Transporters and Approval of Means of Transport The system of authorisation for transporters has not changed significantly from that described in report 8037/2006. An inspection checklist is completed for the approval of vehicles at the same time as the transporter authorisation file. Inspections of means of transport for long journeys (Type II) are carried out using a checklist and a copy of Chapter VI of Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. The requirements of the annex form the basis of additional questions but there are no instructions or guidance on how inspectors can satisfy themselves that the requirements have been met for vehicles' ventilation systems. The CA accepts a self declaration from applicants on their freedom from serious animal welfare infringements: whereas Article 10 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires that the applicants have no record of serious infringements. In one of the regions visited the requirement on the checklist for the provision of ramps for vehicles for short distance transportation (Type I) were not completed as the CA stated that they knew the transporters were only transporting between farms and slaughterhouses. After the DVO has completed the authorisation process the file is sent to headquarters for the issue of the combined transporter and vehicle authorisations. A register of vehicles authorised for short distance transportation was available at central and district level and in the red-meat slaughterhouse visited where it was used in daily checks to verify that vehicles were officially approved. Training courses for the main commercial transporters and their personnel have been made available in 2009 as required by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Further courses are planned for the smaller transport companies. The CCA has issued certificates of competence in 2009 to the staff of the one transporter operating long distance transport in Cyprus. The CCA has not issued certificates of competence for drivers or attendants for short distance transport as required by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 but is intending to use the result of examinations held after the courses which took place in 2009 as the basis for a system of approval to grant the certificates. The CCA has published the list of transporters and long distance means of transport on its Internet site making them publicly available as required by Article 13(4) and 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Conclusions The CA has a system for the authorisation of transporters and is taking steps to ensure all drivers have the relevant training and certificates of competence. However, the system does not yet adequately address the requirements of Article 10 (1b), (1c) and Article 11 1(b) and points iii and iv of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. The CA has not addressed the recommendation from the previous report on suitable equipment for loading and unloading animals. The CA has not provided suitable guidance to officials to enable them to effectively assess all the requirements of Chapter VI of Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 relating to the approval of long distance means of transport. 8

13 5.2.2 Checks on transport Legal requirements Article 27.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires that the CA shall carry out non-discriminatory inspections of animals, means of transport and accompanying documents. Such inspections must be carried out on an adequate proportion of the animals transported each year within each Member State and may be carried out at the same time as checks for other purposes. Findings Report 8037/2006 recommended that regarding fitness of animals for transport, the CA ensures that sufficient investigations are made where injured animals arrive at slaughterhouses so that Article 12 and the last sentence of point 6 of Annex A(1) to Directive 93/119/EC, and Chapter I of Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, are respected. The mission team visited an industrial capacity red meat slaughterhouse. The review of records concerning ante-mortem inspection showed that from 7 April to 29 June 2009, 16 animals (15 downer cows and 1 calf) had been delivered to the slaughterhouse for emergency slaughter. These animals were accompanied by certificates, issued by veterinary practitioners, stating the reasons for slaughter, including fractures of limbs and pelvis, obturator paralysis and uterine prolapse. These pathologies are clearly mentioned in a circular issued by the CCA on 20 April 2006 "fitness for transport and handling of injured animals during transport and in slaughterhouses" as conditions based on which animals should be regarded as unfit for transport. However, the transport of these animals had not been considered as a non-compliance by veterinary staff carrying out the antemortem inspection because the animals were accompanied by a veterinary certificate signed by private practitioners. None of the certificates seen by the mission team included a statement in relation to an assessment of the animal's fitness for transport. Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, Annex I, chapter I, states that "Animals that are injured or that present physiological weaknesses or pathological processes shall not be considered fit for transport and in particular if: (a) they are unable to move independently without pain or to walk unassisted; (b) they present a severe open wound, or prolapse". The delivery of these animals to the slaughterhouse, besides being in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, is also not in line with the instructions issued by the CCA. No training or specific information in relation to fitness for transport has been delivered by the CCA or professional regulatory bodies to private veterinary practitioners. Checks at destination: slaughterhouses The CCA issued revised instructions and a new checklist in August 2009 to carry out animal welfare inspections on short duration transport at red-meat slaughterhouses as a first step in gauging the compliance of this sector and intends to base transport inspections in 2010 on a risk basis. A review of checks carried out under the new procedure in the slaughterhouse visited indicated that inspections had been carried out on a random basis, were sufficiently documented, and that recommendations for action were given to operators when deficiencies were detected. Appropriate deadlines for remedial action had been given for the different severity of non-compliances. Deficiencies mostly related to vehicle structures and it was noted that several improvement notices were served on vehicles for a lack of roof covering although the vehicles had been officially approved by their local DVOs and listed on the VS's register of approved means of transport. 9

14 Checks at destination: intra-community trade Due to previous problems detected in health certificates and journey logs, the CA implemented, in March 2006, a pre-notification and documentary approval system before animals could be imported into Cyprus and put in place a system of checks on 100% of imported consignments arriving by sea from Member States. The CA had communicated deficiencies in completing journey logs and health certification to the exporting countries on six occasions in 2007 and Journey logs and health information are sent to the Cypriot CCA for prior approval 15 days before the expected import. Documentary checks are performed on all consignments arriving at Limassol port and full animal health and welfare checks are then carried out at the farm of destination, rather than unloading the animals at the port. The mission team examined the records relating to a number of these consignments from 2008 and Checks on the fitness of imported animals showed that animals arrived in satisfactory condition. Checks on journey logs had been performed as required by the CCA instruction but they did not detect or record that journey logs had in most cases not been correctly completed, with inadequate details entered by the transporter in section 1 (the planning stage) or section 4 (the actual recorded journey and rest times). It was therefore extremely difficult for the CA to calculate whether journey times had been in compliance with the legal requirements and to record that the consignments were compliant in this regard. One record of a tachograph printout seen was consistent with the planned journey. The new checklist (EZ10B) introduced in August 2009 and used to report on these controls does not give any instruction requiring the completion of section 5 of the journey log when deficiencies are found. Stocking densities recorded in the results of checks on imported consignments were consistent with those seen in the pre-approved documentation. Conclusions The CA has taken insufficient action in response to the previous recommendation on the transport of unfit animals and still permits the systematic transport of unfit animals for slaughter which is not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter I of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. The CA has put in place a comprehensive system of controls for checks on imported consignments arriving by sea from Member States with resulting improvements in the condition of animals arriving. However checks on journey logs have been inconsistently implemented as deficiencies in the completion of journey logs which were not in compliance with the limits set out in Chapter V of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 were not always detected and therefore no follow up action was taken in certain cases Checks of journey times Legal Basis Article 14.1(a) (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires that the CA of the place of departure shall carry out appropriate checks to verify that the journey log submitted by the organiser is realistic and indicates compliance with this Regulation. Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 specifies that CA staff are duly trained and equipped to check data recorded by the recording system for road transport and the navigation system referred to in Annex 1, Chapter VI, 4.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/

15 Findings Report 8037/2006 recommended that that journey times and resting periods of animals transported to other Member States, as laid down in Chapter V of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 are respected. The CCA has taken action to refuse to certify animals for export where the journey times cannot comply with the requirements of Chapter V of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. There have been no consignments of domestic livestock exported by sea from Cyprus since March Some long distance transporters are now using a navigation system to record the details of the journeys they undertake. The CA has not put in place any training to enable staff to satisfactorily address the information obtained from this system. The staff met that had checked one such consignment using this system were not able to clearly explain the recordings obtained from the printout of the system. The journey times obtained from the printout system were also not complete for the whole duration of the journey and the rest stop was not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter V of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Conclusions The CA has taken satisfactory action to address the issue of exported consignments being unable to comply with the journey time and resting period requirements of Chapter V of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. The CA has not provided training, contrary to Article 16 of (EC) No Regulation 1/2005, to check data recorded by the recording system for road transport and the navigation system referred to in Annex 1, Chapter VI, 4.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/ ANIMAL WELFARE WITHIN SLAUGHTERHOUSES Checks within slaughterhouses Legal requirements Article 8 of Directive 93/119/EC requires that inspections and controls in the slaughterhouse shall be carried out under the responsibility of the CA. Article 3 of Directive 93/119/EC requires that animals shall be spared any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering during movement, lairaging, restraint, stunning or slaughter. Article 7 of Directive 93/119/EC indicates that no person shall engage in the movement, lairaging, restraint, slaughter or killing of animals unless they have the knowledge and skill necessary to perform the tasks humanely and efficiently. Article 6.1 of this Directive requires that equipment and installations used for stunning must be used in such a way as to achieve rapid and effective stunning. The competent authority shall check them regularly to achieve this objective. 11

16 Findings Two poultry slaughterhouses were visited by the mission team. The first premises had been the subject of corrective action by the CA on deficiencies in stunning and slaughter equipment. The second premises had been noted as non-compliant for a number of deficiencies relating to the unloading and transporting of birds within the slaughterhouse during a previous mission (ref 8064/2009) carried out by the FVO in In the first slaughterhouse the official veterinarian had detected problems with the stunning equipment displays during a scheduled twice yearly animal welfare check and had requested corrective action with a deadline of 15 days. The owner took corrective action and repaired the equipment with only a minor overrun of the deadline. The stunning and slaughter of the birds was noted to be satisfactory during the visit. There were minor deficiencies noted in relation to the marginal watering of the shackle to leg contact of birds and the lack of some records of movement documents to accompany their transport from the farm of origin to the slaughterhouse. In the second slaughterhouse, further to the comments of the FVO inspectors during mission 8064/2009, the public health section of the VS had visited the slaughterhouse in January 2009 and made recommendations for improvement to address the emptying of the cages onto the conveyor belt; high levels of noise causing unnecessary agitation; the use of metal rods to push birds out of the cages (all with a deadline of 15 days); and that the lairage should be totally separated from the stunning/bleeding area. These deficiencies were reported in an inspection report as having been rectified in February 2009 but were still present during the inspection team's visit. When the four tier cage tilted on to the conveyor belt birds on the upper levels were jumping or falling on to each other, whilst due to the poor maintenance of the cage system, some birds were stuck by their legs in the cages and were pushed out by the metal rods causing unnecessary excitement and potentially traumatic lesions. In addition birds were also subject to pre-stunning shocks before entering the water bath. Conclusions The CA has taken inconsistent action to correct deficiencies detected in the stunning and slaughter of poultry within suitable deadlines. The CA did not take effective action to enforce improvements in the conveyor and cage system seen in the second slaughterhouse where conditions caused unnecessary excitement to birds and potential suffering which is not in compliance with Article 3 and 4 of Directive 93/119/EC. The reporting of deficiencies as rectified when they had not been brings into question the credibility of official reporting. 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The report concludes that although few improvements have been noted in official controls since the last mission in 2006, firm action had been taken to stop intra- community trade where the journey times could not comply with EU requirements. Other actions promised by the CCA in response to the majority of FVO recommendations had either not been taken or had been put in place just before the mission. 12

17 Although the system of controls for farm inspections is mostly satisfactory and farms were generally compliant. Further training of inspectors is needed to ensure staff have the necessary information and skills to carry out official controls effectively. Furthermore, a lack of suitable enforcement powers results in a tolerance of recurring deficiencies. The CA has taken action to improve the system of controls for animal welfare during transport but has not effectively enforced the requirements relating to the transport of unfit animals to slaughterhouses, nor taken effective remedial action in one slaughterhouse where conditions caused unnecessary excitement to birds and potential suffering. 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 5 November 2009 with representatives of the CCA. At this meeting, the main findings and conclusions of the mission were presented by the FVO team. The representatives of the CCA acknowledged the findings and conclusions presented, and provided further clarification on some of the issues discussed. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the competent authority: N. 1. Recommendation Take measures to ensure the accuracy of the certification issued by the CA in relation to animal welfare standards on farms as required by Article 30 (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 882/ Take measures to ensure that: laying hen establishments meet the requirements for claw shortening devices as required in Articles 5(6) and 6(5) of Directive 99/74/EC; operators comply with point 8 of the Annex to the same directive to ensure beaktrimming is carried out on chickens less than 10 days old; inspectors assess the feed and water requirements of laying hens during inspections to ensure these comply with point 14 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. 3. Take measures to ensure inspectors, when on holdings with pigs, adequately check: minimum space allowances and unobstructed floor area (Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2008/120/EC; the availability of material for manipulation and investigation (point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC); and that appropriate records are kept of any medical treatment given to animals (point 5 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC). 4. Take measures to ensure the system of transporter authorisations adequately addresses the requirements of Article 10 (1c) and Article 11 1(b) points iii and iv of Regulation (EC) No 1/

18 N. 5. Recommendation Take measures to ensure that in relation to the transport of animals, suitable equipment for loading and unloading animals is available as required by point 2.2 of Chapter 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/ Take measures to ensure that in relation to the approval of long distance means of transport, inspectors are provided with adequate training and guidance to enable them to effectively assess all the requirements of Chapter VI of Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Take measures to ensure that the systematic transport of unfit animals for slaughter is ended and that the transport of animals to slaughterhouses complies with the requirements of Chapter I of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. Take measures to ensure that checks on journey logs are implemented effectively in compliance with Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/ Take measures to ensure that training to check data recorded by the recording system for road transport and the navigation system referred to in Annex 1, Chapter VI, 4.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 is provided to officials in compliance with Article 16 of the same Regulation. Take measures to ensure that, as required by Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 93/119/EC, automated systems for handling birds do not give rise to avoidable excitement or suffering. The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at: 14

19 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Dir. 93/119/EC OJ L 340, , p Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing Dir. 98/58/EC OJ L 221, , p Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes Dir. 1999/74/EC OJ L 203, , p Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens Dec. 2000/50/EC OJ L 19, , p /50/EC: Commission Decision of 17 December 1999 concerning minimum requirements for the inspection of holdings on which animals are kept for farming purposes Dir. 2002/4/EC OJ L 30, , p Commission Directive 2002/4/EC of 30 January 2002 on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens, covered by Council Directive 1999/74/EC 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 Dec. 2006/778/EC OJ L 314, , p /778/EC: Commission Decision of 14 November 2006 concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during the inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes Dir. 2008/119/EC OJ L 10, , p Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves Dir. 2008/120/EC OJ L 47, , p Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the 15

20 Legal Reference Official Journal Title protection of pigs 16