Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Call for proposals SANCO D5/10753/2010
Grant Agreement no. SANCO/2010/D5/CRPA/SI2.578062
Work Package 5 Deliverable 5.6
Report containing results of the international conference
Authors:
Kees de Roest, Paolo Ferrari and Andrea Porcelluzzi
CRPA
June 28th 2013
Colophon
This report is an official deliverable of the Quality Control Post project. The project “Renovation and promoting high quality control posts in the European Union” foresees a significant improvement of the equipment as well as the management of 12 Control Posts (CPs) located at the cross roads of important flows of animals transported over long journeys in the EU. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Call for proposals SANCO D5/10753/2010 under Grant Agreement no SANCO/2010/D5/CRPA/SI2.578062 Project Office Quality Control Post Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali Spa Corso Garibaldi 42 IT-42121 Reggio Emilia Italy Phone +39 0522 436999 Fax +39 0522 435142 e-mail [email protected] The text of this report represents the authors' views and does not necessarily represent a position of the European Commission who will not be liable for the use made of such information.
3
List of co-authors
IT: Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali (CRPA) IT: Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale” (IZS) ES: Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentaries (IRTA) NL: Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (St. DLO) DK: Baltic Control Ltd. (BC) SE: Sveriges Lantbruksuiniversitet (SLU) FR: Institut de l’Elevage (IE) FR: Institut de la Filiere Porcine (IFIP) DE: Friederich Loeffler Institut (FLI) PL: Warsaw University of life Sciences (SGGW)
The text of this report represents the authors' views and does not necessarily represent a position of the European Commission who will not be liable for the use made of such information.
4
Contents
AGENDA OF THE FINAL CONFERENCE ...........................................................................................5
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .....................................................................................................................6
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE .......................................................................................................9
5
Agenda of the Final conference Renovation and promoting high quality control posts in EU
Meeting place: Thomas Prior Hall, Bewley's Hotel Ballsbridge, Dublin
Thursday 30th of May 2013 8.30 Registration
9.00 Start of Conference
Welcome and overview of project results
Kees de Roest Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali - CRPA
Role of control posts in long journey transport of animals
Agneta Norgren EU Commission - DG SANCO
Official Opening Address by Irish Ministry of Agriculture
Michael Sheahan Irish Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Overview of Project results
9.30 Renovation and new building of control posts in the EU
Paolo Ferrari Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali - CRPA
10.00 Scientific assessment of the animal welfare before and after renovation of control posts
Cecilia Pedernera Institut De Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentaries - IRTA
10.30 On line booking system
Adriano Di Pasquale Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale “G. Caporale” - IZS
10.45 Coffee break
11.00 Economic business model for control posts
Willy Baltussen Agricultural Economics Research Institute - LEI
11.20 Presentation of e-learning tools for control post owners, veterinarians and animal transporters
Girma Gebresenbet Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences - SLU
Silvia D’albenzio Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale “G. Caporale” - IZS
11.45 A new handbook and guidelines for high quality control posts
Béatrice Mounaix Institut d’Elevage
12.10 A certification system for high quality control posts
Kristina Nielsen A/S Baltic Control Ltd
12.45 Discussion and organization of thematic groups
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Discussion Groups
Theme 1 Improvement of animal welfare in control posts
Theme 2 Biosecurity and prevention of the spread of diseases in control posts
Theme 3 Certification system
Theme 4 Economic management of control posts
15.30 Coffee break
15.45 Plenary session and final discussion
16.45 Closure of the Conference
6
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:
Name Surname Affiliation E-mail Address
Roberto Antognarelli COMOS [email protected]
Willy Baltussen LEI- WUR [email protected]
Virginie Barbier Ministère de l'Agriculture - Bureau de
la Protection Animale [email protected]
uv.fr
Marc Billiet International Road Transport Union
(IRU) Permanent Delegation to the EU [email protected]
Paul Bours Ministry of Economic Affairs [email protected]
Ignacio Carro EU Commission. SANCO/F6. FVO ignacio.carro-
Terence Cassidy European Commission [email protected]
u
Michel Courat Eurogroup for animals m.courat@eurogroupforanimal
s.org
Mary Courtney DAFM [email protected]
.ie
Mary Cullinane Department of Agriculture, Food and
the Marine [email protected]
v.ie
Silvia D'Albenzio Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale
dell'Abruzzo e del Molise "G. Caporale"
Brendan Daly DAFM [email protected]
.ie
Nancy De Briyne FVE [email protected]
Kees de Roest CRPA [email protected]
Andrea de Ruvo www.izs.it [email protected]
Adriano Di Pasquale IZSAM [email protected]
Valérie Drique qualivia [email protected]
Robert Drique qualivia [email protected]
Sergio Ferndandez Rodriguez
ANCOPORC [email protected]
Paolo Ferrari CRPA [email protected]
Girma Gebresenbet Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences [email protected]
7
Monika Gębska SGGW [email protected]
Avril Hobson DAfM [email protected]
e
Thomas Kennedy European Commission [email protected]
.eu
Louis Kernaleugen ADN louis.kernaleguen@adn-
genetic.com
Joel Loir SPF Santé publique - Animal welfare [email protected]
Vania Loyola FVO [email protected]
Christina Lyngsø European Parliament [email protected]
pa.eu
Michael Marahrens Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI) [email protected]
e
Stefano Messori Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale
dell'Abruzzo e del Molise G. Caporale [email protected]
Beatrice Mounaix Institut de l'elevage [email protected]
Agneta Norgren European Commission [email protected]
Maeve Palmer Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute [email protected]
Andrea Parrilla BRAZILIAN MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE LIVESTOCK AND FOOD SUPPLY
Patrick Chevillon IFIP [email protected]
Cecilia Pedernera IRTA [email protected]
Andrea Porcelluzzi CRPA [email protected]
Stanislav Ralchev World Organisation for Animal Health -
Stephanie Ronan Department of Agriculture Food and
Marine [email protected]
ov.ie
Lucie Sauvain Bardy Bresse [email protected]
Hans Peter Schons German Animal Breeders Federation
on behalf of Copa/Cogeca [email protected]
Kristina Sloth
Nielsen A/S Baltic Control Ltd [email protected]
Evangelia Sossidou Hellenic Agricultural Organization-
DEMETER [email protected]
Jade Spence Humane Slaughter Association [email protected]
8
Karin Steinkamp Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI) [email protected]
Peter Stevenson Compassion in World Farming [email protected]
Piet Thijsse UECBV [email protected]
Liesbeth Vermeulen KULEUVEN [email protected]
ven.be
Teresa Villalba Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Environment [email protected]
Claudia Vinci UECBV [email protected]
Kathalijne Visser Wageningen UR [email protected]
Hannah Westen World Horse Welfare kirstencooke@worldhorsewelfa
re.org
Jim Hegarty Department Of Agriculture and Food [email protected]
9
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Presentation
The conference starts at 9.00 DE ROEST welcomes the attending people, presents the agenda of the conference and introduces the speakers. NORGREN, on behalf of the EU Commission, explains the background of the project. In addition, she remembers that the EU Commission is not planning to propose a new legislation about animal long transportation: the aim instead is to enforce the existing one. She also stresses the fact that managing control post is a very challenging activity due to a number of reasons (animal and feed price fluctuation, health emergencies, unfair competition of irregular transport companies not stopping in CPs) able to even determine drastic and sudden changes in trade flows. Indeed high quality standards for CPs should improve their management in order to better implement the EU rules on one hand, and to improve animal welfare and biosecurity on the other hand without jeopardizing the economic viability of CPs.
10
comments SHEAHAN welcomes the coordinator, the partners of the Control Post project and all the attending people there and wishes a successful conference.
Paolo Ferrari presents the results of “Renovation and new building of control posts in the EU” (WP1).
comments COURAT: Why only eight Control Posts have been renovated instead of twelve as foreseen in the original project? FERRARI: The main reason why a lower number of Control Posts have been renovated than those who join the project as partner is related mainly to the willingness of some of them to leave the project after starting, namely Wielkopolsky, Hefter, Vilarta, Vittoria. Wielkopolsky and Hefter left the project due to economic reasons and changes of decision of the company ownerships. Vilarta have been asked by the local competent authority to stop or limit their activity as assembly center because not consistent with the control post activity for biosecurity reasons. Hence CRPA tried out to replace Vilarta in collaboration with IRTA by finding an other Control Post in Spain (Arnaiz Ruiz in Miranda de Ebro) whose manager agreed to join the project but left it at the end after the official involvement due to economic reasons and lack of animal transports stopping there. An other replacing Control Post have been found and visited as well at the border between Bulgaria and Turkey in collaboration with DG SANCO and the Bulgarian Ministry of Health but unfortunately this Control Post has not been involved too due to technical reasons. SPENCE: Have the renovated Control Posts been equipped with sick bays and with milking plants? FERRARI: Every CP is provided with adequate sick bays according to the high quality standards set up by the feasibility study. Two partner CPs, namely Bardy Bresse and Qualivia, have been equipped with efficient milking systems to enable them to host milking cows. COURAT: About bio-security: for sure the collection of the cadavers it's an important issue, but it isn't the only one: we must consider also the circulation of the vehicles. The disinfection of trucks should be double checked on the CP to ensure biosecurity and to avoid the spread of livestock diseases across Europe. FERRARI: the renovation process only took into account the need for High quality control post of an efficient truck wash and did not concern very much the CP management practices which are more related to the HQ certification scheme.
11
Cecilia Pedernera presents the results the “Scientific assessment of the animal welfare before and after renovation of control posts” (WP2).
Comments The general comments from the audience were related to the feasibility of the protocol it was mentioned the impact of the fear of animals that could produce some interference with the assessment due to the presence of the assessor, and one comment from the EU federation of veterinary to reduce the protocol to make it practically feasible and we commented how the protocol has evolved to its final version and that would be an extra deliverable from the one we delivered at the beginning of the project. People were interested in the application of the protocol for assessing transport too and in animals arriving to markets or assembly centers. The results presented during the meeting were preliminary but they showed some apparent differences on the effects on the renovation of the Control Post. Moreover, it was concluded there is variability in a number of parameters that were assessed. We remarked that the interpretation of the results must be very careful because of all the variables that affect the results obtained. Examples are: differences in animal categories, time of the day where the assessments took place and moment of the year, etc. At the end the results will give a general view of the welfare of the animals arriving to the Control Post after long journeys and after resting in a CP after 24 hours.
Adriano Di Pasquale presents the “Online booking system” (WP4)
Comments SAUVAIN: More details about the species allowed to stay at the Control Post should be included in the online booking system DI PASQUALE: I would like to ask CPs to provide me with the list of species which are more relevant to the their situation. SAUVAIN: Please specify in the booking system if the CP is equipped with milking systems. In the opinion of some participants, the system is unlikely to be used if it won’t be mandatory. One suggestion is to think about a mechanism for interoperability with TRACES.
12
Willy Baltussen presents the “Economic business model for control posts model (WP4)
Comments One question has been raised about fact finding regarding consignments not stopping at CP. BALTUSSEN: part of research is done during evaluation of Regulation EC 1/2005 project. 50 percent of all consignments lasting 18 to 24 hours according to TRACES should have stopped at a CP. This will double the number of stays at CP. No info is available for other species.
Girma Gebresenbet and Silvia D’Albenzio present the “E-learning tools for control post owners, veterinarians and animal transporters” (WP5)
Comments A first question has been addressed to check if the e-learning tool cover all subject areas and all necessary components in all modules ?
13
GEBRESENBET: As presented, we have structure the whole course into four modules that related to stakeholders: a) for transport companies, b) for control post staffs, c) veterinaries, and d) for all stakeholders (common module). In all modules, we have included all aspects, concepts and activities relevant to the specific stakeholders. COURAT: Nornally elearning courses foresee final tests for certifying the competences acquired by the participants? D’ALBENZIO: In our elearning platform each course foresees a final multiple choice test. Once competed and passed, the platform automatically generates the attendance certificate. DE BRYNE: Are the courses free accessible in the web or login procedures are necessary? D’ALBENZIO: Courses are now available within an open source Learning Management System and credentials are necessary to access them. Future strategies have to be defined by the consortium for guaranteeing the appropriate maintenance of the different learning objects and the continuous dissemination of them. DE BRYNE: Which is the body that certify the acquired competences and which are the logos on the certificate? D’ALBENZIO: Considering that Istituto G. Caporale is managing the platform, the attendance certificate is signed by the Director General of it. The attendance certificate shows the project consortium logo and the logo of the Commission because the project is cofinanced by the DG SANCO. BILLIET: After having personally tested I consider the course for transport companies very useful for our association. You can find in contents more than described in the EU Regulation. We would like to explore a future cooperation for the dissemination of this e-learning tool to the member of our association.
Beatrice Mounaix presents the “New handbook and guidelines for high quality control posts” (WP5)
No comments
Kristina Nielsen presents the “Certification system for high quality control posts” (WP3)
14
Comments A member of the audience expressed his agreement in the fact that there is no basis for a certification system if the system is solely based on CP’s. NIELSEN: benchmarking would be possible against another established system, but it would be expensive too (for example benchmarking against GlobalGap). DE ROEST: GlobalGap had expressed an interest in a certification system for transporters in which CP’s could be included. A member of the audience brought up the idea of self-control by CP’s in the sense that CP’s would be responsible of auditing themselves and turn in reports of this self-auditing. The certification body should then only react if the audit-reports seem insincere (this idea has been discussed again after the discussion groups). NIELSEN: a system of national legislation exists in DK where pig farmers have to fill in self-monitoring reports which is to be checked by the veterinarian every quarter of a year. It was proposed that a solution for CP control might be self-monitoring reports on a regular basis and one management audit every three years. It was widely agreed that public control would probably not be reduced for a CP on basis of a quality certificate although it was noted that this is a common practice used by UK authorities.
15
DISCUSSION GROUPS All participants have been split into four discussion groups related to four important themes. The composition of each discussion group has been set up according to the expectations of the participants, collected at the moment of the conference registration and to need to have representative groups by skills and number of people. Theme 1 - Animal welfare discussion group This discussion group was composed by the following participants.
First name Last name Affiliation
Virginie Barbier Ministère de l'Agriculture - Bureau de la Protection Animale
Nancy De Briyne FVE
Andrea de Ruvo www.izs.it
Brid Farrell Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Sergio Ferndandez Rodriguez ANCOPORC
Paolo Ferrari CRPA
Girma Gebresenbet Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Joel Loir SPF Santé publique - Animal welfare
Agneta Norgren European Commission
Alan O'Brien Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Cecilia Pedernera IRTA
Lucie Sauvain BARDY
Peter Stevenson Compassion in World Farming
Kathalijne Visser Wageningen UR
Jade Spence Humane Slaughter Association
Hannah Westen World Horse Welfare
Apart from the scientists involved in the project, the participants were mainly representing several NGO in animal protection, two competent authorities and one operator in both CP and transport. The discussion was organized around four statements to involve all participants to discuss and to exchange their point of view on some controversial issues regarding animal welfare at CP and during transport. The first statement was: Animal welfare cannot be assessed in an objective way / AW is not objective / AW is subjective Although all participants agreed that assessing welfare had some parts that are subjective, depending on the definition of the welfare, the previous experience with animals, the skills and knowledge in this area and some personal emotional state towards animals, it was also concluded that assessing the welfare of animals is the only way to see the results of the conditions of transport on the animals. In that
16
sense, assessing animal welfare is fully complementary to the evaluation of the resources that is, the means of transport and the characteristics of the CP. Conclusion presented: Assessing welfare of animals can be subjective and depends on the background and previous knowledge of people. An objective way to assess is needed and both animal and resource based indicators should be considered.
The second statement was: Animal Welfare s not easy to estimate for non-specialists (to introduce a discussion about the feasibility of our protocol by CP staff and vets) This statement was directly related with the first one. It was clearly admitted that although this statement might be true from scientific point of view, some simple criteria could be used by operators to be aware of the welfare of animals on a day to day basis to monitor their operation. The objective wouldn’t be to make a complete scientific assessment with data recording or processing, but to be aware of some easy criteria and to better understand some behaviors of the animal that are “telling something” and may help the operator to see some problems in the welfare that he can solve. In that sense, a proper training can be delivered, focused on some key points that would be criteria to observe during the usual work. The official training of drivers was not considered by the operator as long and practical enough to provide such knowledge on welfare but the material developed within the project could be used for this purpose.
17
Conclusion presented: Training how to assess welfare is very important to better understand the interpretation of the indicators and to identify the cause of the problems and find solutions. It will also increase awareness of animal welfare in stakeholders. The third statement was: Stop in a CP is beneficial for both the animals and the transporter. The benefits of taking care of the welfare during transport, especially by stopping at the CP were discussed. It was agreed that both the animals and the transporters can get some benefits from resting at a CP, but this is not always possible due to the poor level of welfare provided by some CP. In this sense the official list of Control Posts in the EU is not providing sufficient insight. All participants agreed that improving the baseline of welfare of most of the CP in EU, at least their compliance towards the current regulation, should be an objective to reach before going into higher standards. The discussion went into the feasibility of it and the possible costs to improve all or most of the CP, but this objective seems difficult to assess regarding the costs and the variability of the activity of some CP. Conclusion presented: Resting in control post is beneficial for animals and for transporters. There is still the necessity of many control post to be improved. The fourth statement was: AW is ensured/guaranteed by the present regulation on the means of transport and doesn’t need any further measurements on the animal (to introduce a discussion on the interest of measuring the results/welfare on animals). It was agreed that the enforcement of the current regulation is not fully fulfilled. The group also concluded that no modification of the current regulation is now necessary, as the increase in the enforcement of the current regulation should be the first objective to improve the welfare of animal. It was also mentioned that the CA need some key points to check for the enforcement of the regulation. Conclusion presented: Enforcement of legislation is an important way to improve animal welfare. The competent authorities should have key points to check.
18
Theme 2 - Biosecurity and prevention of the spread of diseases in control posts. This discussion group was composed by the following people.
First name Last name Affiliation
Roberto Antognarelli COMOS
Louise Fisker Danish Veterinary and Food Administration
Maeve Palmer Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute
Hans Peter Schons German Animal Breeders Federation on behalf of Copa/Cogeca
Teresa Villalba Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment
Michael Marahrens Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI)
Evangelia Sossidou Hellenic Agricultural Organization-DEMETER
THOMAS KENNEDY European Commission
Mary Courtney DAFM
Stefano Messori Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise G. Caporale
Stanislav Ralchev World Organisation for Animal Health - OIE
Claudia Vinci UECBV
Patrick Chevillon IFIP
The discussion was organized around five statements to involve all participants to discuss and to exchange their point of view on a number of controversial issues related to biosecurity and prevention of the spread of diseases in control posts. The first statement was: Biosecurity is the most important issue to be faced by animal traders and transporters. All participant agree that biosecurity is a priority. However, sometimes reality differs from practice depending on animal value (species and use). From the epidemiological point of view, CPs have the advantage to trait hazards, although they have their own risks. The second statement was: The requirements of the legal frame (Reg EC 1/2005, Reg EC 1255/97) are practical to be met in the daily work in CPs. Managing biosecurity is missing from regulations. Cleaning and disinfection operational procedures should be standardized as and included in certification schemes. In the opinion of the participants biosecurity standards are to be developed by CP operators or transport sector, not by legal regulation. The third statement was: Insufficient hygienic conditions for animals and management of CPs is the reason why a number of animal transporters do not stop in CPs during very long journeys. Participants agreed that insufficient hygienic conditions on CPs maybe one of the most important reasons why a number of animal transporters do not stop in CPs
19
during very long journeys. Other major reasons of it are the unsuitable location of the CPs or bad seasonal climatic conditions or bad CP management. The fourth statement was: Regarding biosecurity hazards there is no difference between Control Posts and Assembling Centers. The discussion of this statement resulted in noting that hazards are the same in CPs and Assembly centers whereas the risks are different. Main risks on Assembly Centers are related to mixing animals, cleaning and disinfection facilities and multiple sources of incoming animals (entries). Risks on CPs are lower in relation to the health status of animals which are better known and secured and are familiar to each other (transport in groups). One source of infection is managed at a time there. More facilities for cleaning and disinfections are present on CPs usually. Indeed legal requirements on biosecurity are related to CP only. The fifth statement was: Certification of CP can be used as a guarantee for animal customers about adequate and effective management procedures to protect the health of transported animals. The discussion group agree that the strict implementation of the Regulations is required basically to guarantee the biosecurity principles. Certification Schemes can be an additional tool to ensure better compliance of biosecurity principles.
20
Theme 3 - Certification system This discussion group was composed by the following participants.
First name Last name Affiliation
Silvia D'Albenzio IZSAM
Adriano Di Pasquale IZSAM
Avril Hobson DAFM
VANIA LOYOLA FVO
Brendan Daly DAFM
Beatrice MOUNAIX Institut de l'elevage
Stephanie Ronan Department of Agriculture Food and Marine
Kristina Sloth Nielsen A/S Baltic Control Ltd
Liesbeth Vermeulen KULEUVEN
Marc Billiet International Road Transport Union (IRU) Permanent Delegation to the EU
Karin Steinkamp Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI)
Kees de Roest CRPA
The first statement was: The HQCP-certification system can certify that CP’s comply with EU-legislation. Challenges are that different levels of implementation and enforcement by authorities exist. Advantages are that the system may level the playing field for CP’s if only compliance with EU-legislation of CP’s is foreseen. Need to be above both EU-legislation and other quality schemes to be of interest to stakeholders The second statement was: The certification scheme has great marketing value for CP’s and is of great interest to stakeholders High quality is always good marketing value. In the future, consumers will demand of the whole food chain to be quality certified. The above requires enough certified CP’s in order for transporters, slaughterhouses etc. to be able to fulfill a complete chain of quality. If consumers of end product will not pay more, then it is not feasible for rest of food chain to invest more in quality schemes The third statement was: Private control is valued better by stakeholders than public control. Private systems often have higher standards. In private systems, the results often differ depending on the certification body. A private approval/certification may reduce the risk of getting public control. If private control is centralized within only one organisation, it is better than public control and will provide for a level playing ground for CP’s. The fourth statement was: The HQCP certification scheme will lead to better animal welfare and better bio-security
21
From an individual point of view, a certified CP is not necessarily better. A problem is that the ones signing up for certification, will be the ones complying with criteria, whereas the ones not complying will reject certifications. The HQCP-scheme is not feasible without a scheme for transporters. As well as for CP’s, there is no level playing field for transporters regarding the implementation of rules and regulations in the EU. One advantage is that transporters will know that quality CP’s will have for example the right facilities to wash and disinfect. Another advantage is that transporters will have a place to look for quality CP’s The scheme will create a full chain of quality certification for interested end users (slaughter houses, retailers, consumers etc.)
22
Theme 4 - Economic management of control posts This discussion group was composed by the following participants.
First name Last name Affiliation
Ann Quinn DAFM IRELAND
Louis Kernaleugen ADN
Valerie Drique Qualivia
Robert Drique Qualivia
Willy Baltussen LEI-DLO
Monika Gebska SGGW
Ignacio Carro European Commission
The discussion was organized around the following four statements.
1. Animal welfare and bio security measure investment are always cost effective
2. Subsidies are not necessary to increase quality of control posts 3. Enforcement of Regulation 1/2005 is necessary to increase the visits of
control posts and to increase the economic viability 4. To invest in high quality control posts all stakeholders have to be
conscious about the impact of HQ CP on animal welfare and biosecurity. Education can add to be conscious about these aspects.
The participants shared their experiences concerning economic aspects of running control posts in their countries. They pointed out differences in fixed and variable costs in different countries (e.g. water, fodder, workforce, veterinary costs). It was highlighted that in case of control posts for germ-free animals there were stricter requirements with regard bio-security. Therefore, costs of control posts activity were higher. The debators observed that the investment costs varied from country to country. As a result the prices of services differ, even by 50%. In all countries, it was difficult to predict the number of visits at cp as they depend on the political, economic end health conditions. The uncertainty of CPs incomes makes any investment decisions more difficult and requires detailed calculations. All the participants expressed their positive opinions about the decision making model which proved its usefulness in the project. They were interested in the formulas used in the model. Some improvement of the model was suggested – adding the possibility of detailed calculation of variable costs depended of customer requirements. Moreover, there were questions about insurance and certification costs and their influence on CPs activity. To summarize, economic factors influence density and number of CPs in Europe. The number of CPs remains stable, but many of them have recently suspended their activity due to economic recession.
23
Closure of the conference DE ROEST thanks the attending people for their attention and contribution to the discussion. The conference ends at 5 pm..
