Comme les rencontres R.A..S.... RIEN DE NEUF A SIGNALER !
Raison de plus pour signer la pétition au Parlement Européen sur
* * HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
* * Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office
DG(SANCO) 2010-8390 - MR FINAL
FINAL REPORT OF A SPECIFIC AUDIT
CARRIED OUT IN
FROM 01 TO 12 FEBRUARY 2010
IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS FOR ANIMAL
WELFARE ON FARMS AND DURING TRANSPORT
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.
Ref. Ares(2010)414548 - 11/07/2010
This report describes the outcome of a Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) specific audit in France which
took place from 1 to 12 February 2010, as part of the general audit of France carried out under the
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official food and feed controls.
The specific audit evaluated the implementation of national measures for the control of animal welfare on
farms and during transport.
It is concluded that in spite of extensive procedures having been issued by the CCA following the previous
FVO mission in 2006, major non-compliances in the laying hen and the pig sectors have not been addressed
by the CAs. There is insufficient planning to ensure that the deadline for the ban on non-enriched cages
from 1.1.2012 is met. Regarding transport, the CA has set in place a system for livestock vessels approval;
regarding roadside checks the CA does not adequately follow its own procedures in the prioritisation of
checks on long-distance transport.
The report makes a number of recommendations to the French competent authorities, aimed at rectifying
the shortcomings identified and enhancing the implementing and control measures in place.
The specific audit formed part of the FVO’s planned mission programme. It took place in France
from 1 to 12 February 2010. The audit team comprised two inspectors from the Food and Veterinary
Office (FVO). Representatives from the central competent authority (CCA) accompanied the audit
team for the duration of the audit. An opening meeting was held on 1 February 2010 with the CCA.
At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for, the specific audit were confirmed by the audit
team and the control systems were described by the authorities.
2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION
The objectives of the specific audit were to:
• verify that official controls are organised and carried out in accordance with relevant
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, and the multi-annual national control plan
(MANCP) prepared by France;
• evaluate the implementation of national measures for the control of animal welfare in
accordance with the requirements of EU legislation for animal welfare on farms and during
transport, taking into account the follow-up of previous FVO missions as detailed below.
In terms of scope, the audit concentrated primarily on:
• As regards Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the organisation of official controls (Articles 3-
7),control and verification procedures and methods (Articles 8-10), enforcement (Articles
54-55), MANCP (Articles 41-42) and registration and approval of establishments (Article
• The animal welfare legislation concerning the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes (Council Directive 98/58/EC), the minimum standards for pigs (Council Directive
2008/120/EC), calves (Council Directive 2008/119/EC) and laying hens (Council Directive
1999/74/EC) and the protection of animals during transport and related operations (Council
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005). With regard to transport, the scope was limited to the
assessment of roadside checks and livestock vessels on the basis of documentary checks, as
it was not possible to organise on-the-spot visits for this purpose.
• The implementation of corrective actions undertaken in response to recommendations made
in the reports on previous FVO animal welfare missions to France: DG(SANCO)/8045/2006
concerning animal welfare on farms (May-June 2006) and DG(SANCO)/2009-8245
concerning the protection of animals during transport (April 2009). As the latter mission was
carried out quite recently, a complete follow-up of the actions proposed by the CA to address
the recommendations of this last report on transport was not performed because the
implementation of most of these actions is still in progress. During this specific audit the
audit team received additional updates on these actions.
The table below lists sites visited and meetings held in order to achieve the mission’s objectives:
Opening and closing meeting with the CCA
Meetings with DDPPs (hereafter: local CAs) in Saint-Lô, Département de La
Manche (Lower Normandy Region) and Laon, Département de l’Aisne
4 laying hen farms (3 cages and 1 alternative system) and 3 pig farms (2
fattening and breeding and 1 breeding farm)
3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION
The mission was carried out under the general provisions of Community legislation, and in
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;
A full list of the legal instruments referred to in this report is provided in the Annex and refers,
where applicable, to the last amended version.
4.1 CONTRIBUTION TO THE GENERAL AUDIT
Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the Commission to carry out general and
specific audits in Member States. The main purpose of such audits is to verify that, overall, official
controls take place in Member States in accordance with the multi-annual national control plans
referred to in Article 41 and in compliance with Community law.
This specific audit was carried out as part of a general audit mission to France. Section 5 below
contains findings and conclusions relating to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004;
section 6 below contains findings and conclusions relating to sector-specific issues.
4.2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS F V O MISSION RESULTS
The most recent previous missions concerning animal welfare in France were carried out in 2006
and 2009, and their results are described in reports DG(SANCO)/8045/2006 and
DG(SANCO)/2009-8245. The reports on these missions (hereafter referred to as reports 8045/2006
and 2009-8245 respectively) have been published on the website of the Directorate-General for
Health and Consumers:
http ://ec.europa. eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm.
Report 8045/2006 regarding the implementation of EU animal welfare legislation applicable to pig,
calf and laying hen farms concluded that the CCA had enhanced their system of control. Although
the documentation of infringements was improving, procedures were not always sufficient to ensure
that corrective actions were taken. Major enhancements had been made to the reporting system, but
the format for summarising the results for the report to the Commission would not provide all the
information required by EU legislation.
Report 2009-8245 on transport concluded that the CA had put in place a system for implementing
the rules on the protection of animals during transport which was being integrated with the
requirements for official controls laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. However, the
procedures for the authorisation of transporters were incomplete and means of transport for long
journeys had been approved without verification of all the requirements laid down in Regulation
(EC) No 1/2005. When deficiencies were detected during checks on transport, the remedial actions
taken were not always sufficient. Additionally, certain problems identified in previous FVO
missions had not been addressed by the competent authority, such as the transport of unfit animals
to slaughterhouses and inadequate checks on journey logs.
5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION (EC) NO 882/2004
5.1 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
5.1.1 Designation of Competent Authorities
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States to designate the competent
authorities responsible for official controls.
The CA for animal welfare is clearly designated and it is the DGAL, the Directorate-General for
Food (Direction Générale de l’Alimentation).
The structure and organisation of the CA is described in detail in France’s Multi-Annual National
Control Plan (MANCP) and in the FVO report DG (SANCO)/8104-2009 Country Profile for
http ://ec.europa. eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm.
In addition, the following observations were made:
• At local level official controls on animal welfare on farms/in transport are carried out since
1 January 2010 by officers from the Departmental Directorate for the Protection of
Populations, DDPP (Direction Départementale de la Protection des Populations, hereafter
referred to as local CA), an interministerial structure which has merged the existing
Departmental Directorate for Veterinary Services (Direction Départementale des Services
Vétérinaires, DD SV) with other services (such as: Directorate for Competition, Consumer
• The CA for the registration of laying hen farms is the DDPP; the allocation of the code
provided for in Commission Directive 2002/4/EC is carried out by the Departmental
Livestock Body, EDE (Etablissement Départemental d’Elevages), which is part of the
Agriculture Chamber (Chambre d’Agriculture).
• Within the DDPP at local level, there is an office for the protection of the environment
(Service des Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement — ICPE, part of
the Ministry for the Environment), which deals with the environmental aspects of farms.
Farmers are required to apply for authorisation to install a new farm or to notify any
refurbishment to the environmental office, when the number of animals exceeds a certain
limit (e.g. for hens over 30 000). Depending on the environmental impact of the
refurbishment, a new authorisation procedure may be required, leading to the drafting of a
new prefectoral order (arrêté préfectoral).
5.1.2 Co-operation between Competent Authorities
Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provides for efficient and effective co-ordination and
co-operation between competent authorities.
There is no specific arrangement in place for cooperation and collaboration between different local
CAs regarding official controls on laying hen farms, such as the ICPE, which establishes in
particular the maximum capacity of the farms in relation to their environmental impact, and the
DDPP, in charge of their registration in accordance with Directive 2002/4/EC (see point 6.1.1).
5.1.3 Co-operation within Competent Authorities
Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires that, when, within a competent authority,
more than one unit is competent to carry out official controls, efficient and effective co-ordination
and co-operation shall be ensured between the different units.
In general, there is overall a well established flow of information between the CCA and local CAs.
However, the audit team noted that a letter (‘Fiche de Revue d’ordre de Service’) sent by one of the
local CAs to the CCA in March 2009 (nine months before this audit), concerning the need to review
the procedure for issuing certificates of approval for short-distance means of transport, had not yet
The audit team observed that one case of infringements on transport had not been communicated to
other Member States (see point 6.2.2); delays in the communication of infringements from/to the
CCA in replying to other Member States had already been highlighted in the previous mission
report 2009-8245 and was the subject of a specific recommendation for which the CA had supplied
5.1.4 Delegation of specific tasks related to official controls
Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 sets out the scope of possible delegation to control
bodies, the criteria for delegation, and the minimum criteria which must be met by control bodies.
Where such delegation takes place, the delegating competent authority must organise audits or
inspections of the control bodies as necessary. The Commission must be notified about any
No official task concerning animal welfare has been delegated by the CA.
5.1.5 Contingency planning
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 also requires that competent authorities have
contingency plans in place, and are prepared to operate such plans in the event of an emergency.
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States to draw up operational
contingency plans setting out measures to be implemented without delay when feed or food is found
to present a serious risk.
Not applicable to this specific audit.
Conclusions on Competent Authorities
The CAs for animal welfare are clearly designated and there is a well established system of
coordination and cooperation between local CAs and CCA. However, there is no clear indication of
responsibilities for keeping and updating the register of laying hen farms, contrary to Article 1 of
Directive 2002/4/EC. Furthermore, there is insufficient cooperation and coordination between local
CAs and other authorities involved in controls on laying hen farms, undermining the effectiveness
of official controls of this sector (see point 6.1.1 regarding overstocking).
5.2 RESOURCES FOR PERFORMANCE OF CONTROLS
5.2.1 Legal basis for controls
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires that the necessary legal powers to carry out
controls are in place and that there is an obligation on food business operators to undergo inspection
by the competent authorities. Article 8 of the above Regulation requires that competent authorities
have the necessary powers of access to food business premises and documentation.
Legal provisions are in place to ensure that the CA has the necessary legal powers to carry out
controls and to take enforcement measures. Officials from the CA have the necessary legal powers
of entry to establishments and access to operator documentation in accordance with Articles 19, 20
and 23 of the Rural Code, Law No 214.
5.2.2 Staffing provision and facilities
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have
access to a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff; that appropriate and
properly maintained facilities and equipment are available; and that staff performing controls are
free of any conflict of interest.
An overview of CA staff resources is included in the relevant section of the Country Profile.
In general, staff from the CAs have access to adequate IT facilities, including the SIGAL system
(Information System of the Directorate-General for Food) and the CCA intranet, which contains
instructions, guidelines and checklists.
At one of the local CAs visited, there were two technicians in charge of animal welfare checks;
concerning farms, equipment to measure dimensions of buildings and pens and to measure light
intensity was available. However, the luxmeter was not working properly and no equipment to
measure noise level was available (Points 1 and 2 of Chapter I of Annex I to Directive 2008/120/EC
set noise levels of 85 dBA light intensity of at least 40 lux, respectively). No specific equipment
(e.g. ladders or inspection ramps) was available to carry out roadside checks at the port of
At another local CA visited, six technicians dealt with different tasks, including official controls on
animal welfare; no equipment to measure noise level and light intensity was being used during the
inspection of a pig farm. The CCA explained that they instructed local CAs not to use this
equipment because they are in the process of calibrating it, as calibration is a requirement for the
purposes of accreditation of the Veterinary Services.
5.2.3 Staff qualifications and training
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires competent authorities to ensure that staff receive
appropriate training, and are kept up-to-date in their competencies.
Minimum recruitment qualifications are specified for technical and professional staff of the DGAL
and the DDPP.
A procedure for the assessment of training needs and for the preparation and implementation of
national and local training plans is described in the DGAL’s National Quality Plan, which is in the
process of being implemented. The audit team received an overview of the training courses
organised and planned for years 2007 to 2010 concerning animal welfare in farms, during transport
and at slaughterhouses at CCA level.
At local level, the audit team observed that:
• At one of the local CAs individual training needs had been assessed and training for staff
had been carried out from 2005 to 2009. The staff in charge of official controls on farmed
animals were competent and had received training on animal welfare on farms. Although
there was no long distance transport of animals taking place at this local CA, nevertheless
staff were involved in vehicle approval. The staff had received no specific training on
animal welfare during transport.
• At another local CA, the training programme for 2009 included only training concerning
welfare of animals transported to slaughterhouses: this training had been followed by one
official performing official controls at slaughter. The plan for 2010 was at a draft stage. The
staff’s training needs were assessed during an individual annual interview with their
hierarchy. The document concerning the mentoring (‘ Tutorat ’) of one of the staff did not
include sufficient details on the areas in which the technician had received mentoring. The
staff in charge of official controls on farmed animals, although competent and skilled, had
never followed specific training courses on animal welfare. The local CA considered the
inspectors to be in need of improving their practical knowledge in laying hen farm
inspection; therefore, they carried out the on-site visit for the purpose of this audit to a
laying hen farm in conjunction with technicians from a neighbouring local CA.
Conclusions on Resources for Performance of Controls
The CA has the legal powers for carrying out controls, as well as adequate resources; however, local
inspectors do not avail of properly functioning equipment for assessing certain parameters for
animal welfare controls, such as light and noise intensity, as required by the relevant EU
legislation.The CA has a system in place to assess training needs and provide training, which was
effectively implemented by one local CA regarding checks of welfare on farms but not by the other,
training on transport issues was very limited in both CAs visited.
lire l'intégralité sur