1 Identification and registration
system for sheep and goats
(24166)
15829/02
COM(02) 729
| Draft Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92.
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; qualified majority voting
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 10 April 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-x (2002-03), paragraph 4 (29 January 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
1.1 Council Directive 92/102/EEC establishes a system for
the identification and registration of animals, principally in
order to enable veterinary checks to be carried out, but also
to identify certain types of livestock eligible for Community
aid schemes to be identified. Its main provision requires Member
States to maintain an up-to-date list of all holdings on which
animals covered by the Directive are kept, and to ensure that
the owners maintain a register stating the number of animals present
on the holding, together with a record of all births, deaths and
movements. In the latter case, information also has to be provided,
on at least an aggregate basis, showing the date of movement,
and the holding of origin or destination. In the case of cattle,
each animal must be identified individually by an eartag, whereas
other animals may simply be marked in such a way as to make it
possible to identify the holding from which they have come.
1.2 As we noted in our Report of 29 January 2003,
the Commission put forward the current document in December 2002,
following the foot-and-mouth crisis. The main changes proposed
were that:
· all
sheep and goats born after 1 July 2003, or intended for intra-Community
trade, should be tagged in each ear within one month of birth,
with an individual identification number;
· as from 1 July
2003, farm registers should contain precise information on the
identity of all animals on the holding, as well as on births,
deaths, and movements onto or from the holding;
· as from 1 July
2003, documents should be issued by the Member State to accompany
each batch of sheep or goats being moved;
· as from 1 July
2004, Member States should have in place a central register of
holdings keeping sheep and goats;
· as from 1 July
2005, each Member State should have set up a computerised central
database;
· Member States
may allow one ear tag to be replaced with an electronic identifier,
with this becoming mandatory from 1 July 2006.
1.3 The proposal also amends Regulation (EEC)
No. 3508/92 in order to establish that the granting of aid, such
as the Sheep Annual Premium payment, should be dependent on compliance
with these conditions.
1.4 Our earlier Report noted that the UK supported
the objective of the proposal, and had in place measures which
satisfied some of its key elements. Nevertheless, the Government
considered that the proposal would give rise to major implementation
problems. In particular, it believed that electronic identification
and associated systems would need to be introduced on a widespread
basis in order to record the details of individual sheep and goats
routinely, and that technical guidance would be crucial to their
implementation throughout the Community.
1.5 The Government also pointed out that the
UK had the largest number of sheep and goats of any Member State,
and also on average moved each sheep more often. These factors,
together with the UK's stratified and extensive industry, meant
that any manual recording of individual sheep and goat identities
would be very difficult, and impose considerable burdens on the
industry. All this led it to conclude that the proposal would
need some amendment in order to make it both workable and enforceable,
and to ensure that the time-scales for implementation were realistic.
1.6 In our own conclusion, we noted that the
proposals could have major cost and practical implications for
the UK industry, and that considerably more work was needed in
order to quantify these. We therefore said that we would await
the Regulatory Impact Assessment which the Minister had promised
before considering the matter further.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 10 April
2003
1.7 In his supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
(EM) of 10 April 2003, the Minister confirms that the proposal
as drafted presents major problems, and that the main and continuing
difficulty is the requirement to record the identity and other
details relating to individual animals on movement documents and
in flock registers before a system of electronic identification
has been agreed. He adds that this will not be possible before
1 July 2003, and that, even if a harmonised system of electronic
identification becomes available, it will not resolve all the
issues relating to the recording of individual identification.
1.8 The Minister has provided with his supplementary
EM the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment (though he points
out that, because of the Commission's 1 July 2003 target implementation
date, this has been produced without formal consultation with
the industry, and that a further Assessment will be provided if
the consultation exercise indicates this is necessary). As it
is, the Assessment shows that the proposal would until 2006 give
rise to additional annual costs to the industry of £89 million,
of which £22.75 million would relate to the tagging of each
ear, nearly £50 million to providing the information required
for farm registers, and nearly £17 million to the need for
documents to accompany batch movements. In addition, the Government
would incur additional annual running costs of some £6 million,
plus set-up costs, and the link between compliance with the new
arrangements and the payment of Community sheep subsidy (amounting
to around £182 million in 2001) means there would also be
a risk of the Commission disallowing some or all of UK expenditure
under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
After the introduction of electronic identification in 2006,
the Minister says that there would be a one-off capital investment
of £45 million, but that the annual costs thereafter would
fall to around £44 million. The Government is therefore
keen to explore the option of maintaining the status quo until
2006, and moving directly to an electronic system then.
1.9 The Minister also refers briefly to the current
timetable. He says that Member States have yet to discuss the
proposal, and that it is thus highly unlikely that the introduction
of double tagging and individual animal recording will be achieved
by 1 July 2003, as envisaged. He adds that the Commission and
the current Presidency have indicated a wish to have some discussion
this spring, but that the proposal is likely to be passed on to
the next Presidency.
Conclusion
1.10 Though we recognise that
the Regulatory Impact Assessment provided by the Minister is based
on the information currently available, and may need to be updated
in the light of the Government's consultation exercise, it nevertheless
makes it clear that the costs of the proposal are likely to be considerable,
particularly if it was necessary to move in 2006 to an electronic
system via the various measures the Commission suggests should come
into force this year. In view of this, and the many uncertainties
currently surrounding the proposal, we are recommending it for debate
in European Standing Committee A.
|
