Animal Transport Certification
Regulations and directives were adopted in the EU to improve animal welfare and biosecurity during transport: in particular, the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1255/97, setting minimum requirements for Control Posts, are currently the legal references and basis for this specific sector.
The two projects funded by the DG Health and Food Safety of the EU Commission and described in this website foresaw the development of private certification scheme for both Control Posts and transporting companies, so called Quality schemes. The basis is that private schemes may favour higher compliance with Regulations; this assumption is supported by findings in scientific literature. More compliance through Quality schemes implies therefore more animal welfare and biosecurity during transport compared to the situation where only public regulation is available.
To better define costs of private schemes and their benefits, an analysis was executed during the “Quality Transport and Control Post Project” and project partners compared private and public control systems.
The cost-benefit analysis consisted of different steps. First, two scenarios were defined. The baseline year is 2009 (Scenario 1): following the introduction of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005, transporters started adapting their trucks and CP owners invested to adapt their stables to comply with the quality rules.
Scenario 2 represents a future situation after the introduction of a private and voluntary quality scheme in Europe. Given the legal context and different degrees of participation in the schemes, compliance with the law is higher among companies participating in the Quality schemes. Quality schemes are more attractive if they ensure full compliance with legislation in force, solve major points of confusion (like heights of trucks) and if they are not too different from other existing transport schemes.
The project approach was that Scenario 2 and its different options were compared with baseline Scenario 1; additional costs and additional benefits were identified. A distribution of costs and benefits among the actors of the chain was not calculated.
Data analysis and intermediary results are described in the article included in the Project Newsletter n. 5.
The final report is available here: