Question Time (Commission), 1 July 2003
Question by John Purvis MEP
Cost-benefit anaysis of the identification and registration of sheep and goats.

The Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the identification and registration of sheep and goats is a cause of deep concern in Scotland. The manual scheme is both impractical and expensive for the Scottish sheep farming and processing industry, which is already struggling financially.

Since my enquiry in April, has the Commission now carried out a cost-benefit analysis? Can the Commission tell me how much the introduction of this manual scheme will cost the sheep farming industry in Scotland, the UK and EU?

(The Commission has proposed new rules which will require double eartagging of sheep and goats to ensure that the identity of the animal is retained if one tag is lost. Eartagging must be done manually as the electronic tagging system will not be available until 2006. This manual scheme will be impossible to implement for sheep farming and processing (e.g. at auction markets) on the scale which it is practised in Scotland. It is also an added expense to an industry already under a high degree of financial strain.)

Byrne, Commission . The Commission proposal addresses the acknowledged need for urgent reinforcement of the current rules for identification and registration of sheep and goats, in particular in view of the experience acquired from the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease crisis.

In its resolution on foot and mouth disease of December 2002, the European Parliament stated that the Commission should as quickly as possible submit a proposal to amend Directive 92/102/EEC so as to improve the identification of pigs, sheep and goats.

According to current legislation sheep and goats must be identified with an eartag or a tattoo linked to the holding. The keepers must keep an up-to-date register on the holding, and the competent authority must keep an up-to-date central register of holdings.

The main new elements of the proposed system are individual identification, double eartagging to ensure that identity is retained where one eartag is lost, and the introduction of a movement document.

Individual identification is essential for the effective tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial importance for the control of contagious diseases.

The introduction of a reinforced system will have a positive impact in case of outbreaks of major animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, allowing the rapid identification of the source of infection and limiting the further spread of the disease. Furthermore it will allow accurate tracing of animals in the framework of the animal disease eradication programmes financed by the Community. Finally, such a system would assist in reducing fraud.

The technology of electronic identification for sheep and goats has progressed to such a stage that it can now be applied. The Commission launched a large-scale pilot project - the IDEA Project - in 1998. The final report of this project, which included sheep and goats, as well as bovine animals, was completed in 2002.

However, the implementing measures required for the proper introduction of the system of electronic identification on a Community scale have yet to be fully developed. The proposal therefore provides for further guidelines and procedures to be adopted through the Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, with entry into force of obligatory electronic tagging foreseen for 1 July 2006.

I am well aware of the diversity of the sheep population and the sheep production systems in the Member States. The proposal therefore includes options, which would allow: Member States to defer the identification of lambs up to the age of 6 months, where sheep are kept under extensive farming conditions, for instance in Scotland - to which the questioner referred; Member States to apply simplified identification arrangements to young lambs, up to six months of age, intended for direct slaughter. The options decided upon will influence the likely costs to the farmers of introducing the new system.

The estimation of the costs of introduction of the reinforced system on a Community-wide basis has to take into account the diversity of the sheep population and the sheep production systems in the Member States. In the absence of precise information on movements and other parameters, the estimate has to be based on the general structure of the various production systems.

On this basis, the overall costs of the reinforced system are estimated to vary between EUR 1 for traditional eartags to EUR 3.7 for electronic identification per sheep per year.
I recognise that this proposal will require significant efforts by both operators and authorities. But these efforts in my opinion and in the opinion of the Commission are both worthwhile and necessary.

Purvis (PPE-DE). – I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he is aware of the extreme impracticality of the manual tagging of individual sheep, and its maintenance for a further two years. Has he ever seen an auction market? I am sure that in his home country of Ireland the situation is the same as in Scotland, where you have thousands of sheep going through in one day and each individual sheep has to be inspected and tagged as it goes through. That will add days to sales for only for two years' worth of savings. Could he not and has he not considered doing this on a flock basis, as opposed to an individual sheep basis, for this two-year period of time?

Byrne, Commission . In answer to the supplementary question from Mr Purvis, let me say that I, the Commission and my advisers have considered the possibility of herd tagging. I raised that question specifically with them. The answer they gave me - and it seemed credible - is that the system of herd tagging you suggest does not have the same degree of security in circumstances where you may have an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or similar.

Also, for the reason that you identify in your supplementary question, in these markets that we see in Scotland and in my home country of Ireland as well, herds arrive, they are sub-divided into other herds, they are separated so that the chance of following a particular herd number and getting the information that you need in the case of an outbreak of disease is diluted to a considerable extent. In fact, it eliminates the opportunity of following a particular animal that may be carrying that particular disease.

In those circumstances, the only alternative available to us was to come forward with an individual identification tag system. I acknowledge this will last for an interim transition period until electronic tagging comes into play: it is scheduled for 1 July 2006.

I have to say to Mr Purvis that there are many people calling for this system of tagging for the reason that I have identified. Member States want it, even the Member States that have large sheep populations and trade a lot in sheep, both within the Member State and across borders. For those reasons, the degree of support that exists in the Community for this proposal is strong. Therefore, in the light of the need to protect animal health and for other reasons it seems necessary to come forward with that particular proposal.

Finally, I should again draw attention to what I said a moment ago: the Commission has taken into account the diversity of the sheep population and the sheep production systems in Member States and the proposal includes options which Member States may decide to apply under certain circumstances. For instance, for animals kept in extensive farming conditions and in free range, the age of tagging may be extended from one month to six months of age, but, in any event, before leaving the holding of birth. Also, for animals intended for slaughter before six months of age, the identification code may be the code of the holding of birth and the month of birth. Under this system, instead of each individual animal, groups of animals with the same identification code are recorded in the holding register and the movement document. That is a measure that was introduced in the legislation in ease of the kind of farming that I know exists in some remote areas in Scotland and, to a very large extent, meets the case that you have put forward in trying to respond to the concerns that you address.

Where the animals are obviously over six months of age, then, of course, individual tagging must take place for the reason I have already identified.