COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.04.1998 
COM(1998) 207 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on 
the identification and registration of animals 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
ON 
THE IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF 
ANIMALS 
A. GENERAL ASPECTS 1 * 
1 Directive 92/102/EEC 1^ 
2 Data sources 2 
3 Transposition of the legislation 3 
4 Identification of bovine animals 
5 
B. OVINE/CAPRINE AND PORCINE ANIMALS 7 
1 Identification of Ovine and caprine animals 1 
2 Identification of porcine animals 10 
3 Overall main remarks 13 
C. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS 16 
1 Needs and possible options 16 
2 Guidance scheme 18 
Annex J Livestock distribution by Member State 
Annex II Directive 92/102/EEC - Transposition status 
IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION 
OF ANIMALS 
The present report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament has 
been elaborated in the framework of the provisions of Article 10 of Directive 92/102/EEC . 
It aims at stating the experience gained, and drawing conclusions, on identification and 
registration of animals in the European Union. It focuses on ovine/caprine and porcine 
animals as the case of bovine has just been dealt with by Council Regulation (EC) No 
820/97' establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and 
regarding the labelling of beef and beef products. 
A. GENERAL ASPECTS 
1. Directive 92/102/EEC 
The Council Directive 92/102/EEC on the identification and registration of animals has two 
basic objectives: 
the localisation and the tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial 
importance for the control of contagious diseases; 
the management and supervision of livestock premiums as part of the reform of the 
agricultural policy. 
To deal with these objectives the productive livestock must be adequately identified and 
registered according to the same requirements in all Member States. 
Directive 92/102/EEC applies^ to bovine, ovine, caprine, and porcine animals and rules 
have been laid down: 
1 O.J. L 355, 27.11.1992, p. 32 
2 O.J. L 117, 21.04.1997, p. 1 
The provisions related to the bovine animals are now revoked and replaced by the provisions foreseen by 
the new Regulation. 
1*> 
to keep an up-to-date list of the holdings in each Member State(Arficle 3); 
to keep registers of the animals at the level of the holdings, including information for 
all births, deaths and movements(Article 4); 
to identify, according to several principles and possible derogation, the different types 
of animals of a Member State;(Article 5); 
to keep track of animals in case of exchange between Member States, and, in 
particular, the possibility to replace the eartag or the other identification mark with a 
modification of the initial code;(Article 6) 
to identify imported animals without losing the trail of previous identification 
marks.(Article 8) 
Article 10 of Directive 92/102/EEC stipulates that: "Not later than 31 December 1996, 
acting on the basis of a report from the Commission, accompanied by any proposals, on 
which it will decide by a qualified majority the Council, shall, in the .light of experience 
gained, review the provisions of this Directive with a view to defining a harmonised 
identification and registration system and shall decide on the possibility of introducing 
electronic identification arrangements in the light of progress achieved in this field by the 
International Organisation for Standardisation(ISO)". 
2. Data sources 
To draft this report Commission, by letters sent to the Member States, asked for relevant 
information and state of things on the following: 
Identification system of bovine, porcine and ovine animals 
Registration of animals on the holding 
Central registration of animals 
Systems of individual "passports" 
Electronic identification 
The data collection was concluded by the end of 1996, integrating though relevant 
information until recently. However, in some cases the data were incomplete. In particular, 
two Member States, Spain and Belgium, have only sent copies of their current legislation 
without replying to the Commission's specific questions. 
Furthermore, the Commission used the available DG XXIV(veterinary inspection services)4 
reports, where they dealt with this subject, and the reports related to the Integrated 
Administration and Control System drawn by the EAGGF3. However, as far as EAGGF 
reports are concerned, it should be noted that : 
in several occasions the data provided by this source were not up to date; 
these reports refer only to "premium" animals and, therefore, do not include data 
concerning the porcine species, or do not refer to all production categories of bovine 
or ovine/caprine animals. 
In addition, consultations took place with representatives of farm associations, and a 
working group of private experts was established to examine the identification and 
registration system of ovine/caprine animals, as well as of porcine animals. 
Despite the efforts, some information is missing and the analysis of several aspects has not 
been fulfilled as precisely as wished. 
3. Transposition of the legislation 
Member States had to transpose Directive 92/102/EEC for the whole livestock described in 
Annexe I of the present report. The basic livestock population concerns about 85 million 
bovines. 110 million ovine/caprine and 115 million porcine animals. Every year, the 
Food and Veterinary Office 
European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
identification system has to deal with the replacements of slaughtered animals, that is 
about 30 million bovines, 80 million ovine/caprine and 190 million porcine animals. 
Thus, the initial work of identification is more or less the same in the three sectors but the 
annual work is more important for ôvine/caprine (about 3 times) and for porcine (about 6 
times) than for bovine animals. 
On the basis of the average number of animals per holding, the main effort has to be 
done: 
• by Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands for 
bovine; 
• by United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and Ellas for ovine/caprine; 
• by Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany for porcine animals. 
Article 11 of Directive 92/102/EEC provide for transposition of the legislation by 
October 1993 for bovine animals, by January 1994 for porcine animals and by January 
1995 for ovine and caprine animals. As shown in Annexe II, the transposition of the 
directives into national law was largely incorrect as far as the deadlines were concerned. 
For bovine animals, Member States were generally 2 years late. Only Belgium and the 
Netherlands had their transposition done in due time, by the end of 1993. The last 
modification has taken place in 1996. 
For porcine animals, Belgium had, already in 1990, national legislation on identification. 
The three other Member States with the main production, as well as Portugal, have 
transposed the Directive into national law by the year of 1994 following the foreseen 
deadline. Most of the other Member States were 1 or 2 years late and Finland has not yet 
finished its transposition. 
For ovine and caprine animals, the deadline of 1995 was respected by Denmark and 
Portugal. The transposition was completed the following year, in 1995, by Austria, 
Sweden, Luxembourg, Ellas and Germany. The main producers that are the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Spain have transposed the Directive in 1996. France and Finland 
have not yet finished this transposition, but planned to do it in 1997. 
4. Identification of bovines 
As regards the identification of bovines, compliance with the Directive 92/102/EEC means 
mainly: 
• the competent authority has an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep animals 
and that list must specify the species kept and their keepers; 
• eartags must be applied on the animals not later than 30 days after birth. However, 
provisional approved marks may be kept up to the age of-six months; and some 
calves intended for slaughter before the age of six months may leave the holding of 
their birth to be marked at the fattening holding; 
• the eartag should bear an alphanumeric code, which shall not exceed 14 characters, in 
order to identify each animal individually along with the holding on- which it was 
bom; 
• in the case where a mark has to be replaced, a link should be established between the 
new and the old mark; 
• identification within 30 days of all animals imported from third countries, 
establishing a link between the identification mark of the third country and the 
identification allocated by the Member State of destination; that identification is not 
compulsory if the animal is slaughtered within 30 days in the importing Member 
State; 
• a register has to be kept at the level of the holder, stating the number of animals 
present, and an up-to-date record of all births, deaths and movements, at least on the 
basis of aggregate movements; 
• the keeper of animals to be moved to or from a market, or collection centre, must 
provide a document to the operator who is a keeper of animals, setting out, on a 
temporary basis, details of the animals, including the identification numbers or marks. 
Regarding compliance with Directive 92/102/EEC, nine(9) Member States may be 
considered as having completed the minimum level of implementation. The Netherlands is 
quite advanced in relation to the Directive 92/102/EEC provisions. Belgium has already 
implemented double marking of the animals and their "SANITEL"6 identification and 
registration system is close to the one provided by the new Regulation on the identification 
and registration system of the bovine animals. 
As far as identification documents are concerned, the majority of the Member States ask 
only for accompanying documents. However Sweden has in use movement documents that 
are not properly certified by an official veterinarian and not sent to the central authorities. 
Denmark uses two certificates ("IBR" and "BVD"). On a higher level of implementation of 
the community rules, Ireland and Portugal require identity cards while passports are already 
in use in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland a computerised movement record is working. 
Ellas, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden show deficiencies of implementation of 
Directive 92/102/EEC in relation to either: 
• the central register which deals in some cases only with premium animals, or 
• the keeping of the register on the holding, or 
• the existence of an applied eartag system for all bovine animals. 
Therefore, around 20% of the bovine livestock were not complying with the requirements 
of Directive 92/102/EEC. 
However, as regards to the bovine species, the recently adopted Council Regulation (EC) 
No 820/97 already improves the requirements related to the system of identification and 
registration. 
This Regulation reinforces the provisions of Directive 92/102/EEC as follows: 
• an eartag must be applied on each ear; eartags which have become illegible or have 
been lost, must be replaced by a new mark, bearing the same code as the original tag; 
• a passport should be issued within 14 days of the notification of an animal's birth; 
"SANITEL" identification and registration system which is in use in Belgium comprises elements as: 
- oval plastic eartag (country code+holding number+individual number) approved by the Ministry of 
Agriculture ; 
- registration forms which are computerised; 
- holding registration will cover all animals present at the holding. 
a computerised database must become fully operational no later than 31 December 
1999; 
the up-to-date holding register shall comprise data on births, deaths and all 
movements; 
B. OVINE/CAPRINE AND PORCINE ANIMALS 
1. Identification of Ovines and caprines 
In accordance with the Council Directive 92/102/EEC, by 1.1.95, Member States should 
have in place an identification and registration system for ovine/caprine animals that 
should comprise: 
• an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep more than three animals; 
• . a holding register recording at least aggregate movements and the total number of 
sheep and goats present each year on a date to be determined by the competent 
authority; 
• . identification marks (eartag or tattoo), determining at least the holding of origin and 
the holding on which the animal was born, applied on animals as soon as possible 
and in any case before leaving the holding of birth; 
In relation to the registration of movements, Member States had the possibility to apply 
their national systems, provided that they have communicated them to the Commission 
by 1.7.1994 for eventual approval or amendments. There was no notification of this kind 
brought to the attention of the relevant Commission services. Animals bearing a 
temporary mark must be accompanied throughout their movement by a document which 
enables the origin, ownership, place of departure and destination to be determined. 
The implementation of the community rules is more or less completed in nine(9) Member 
States. It is mainly deficient in Italy and Portugal where holding registers are not kept on 
every holding, and in Ellas, Finland, and France, where, in addition to that, identification 
marks are not placed in all the required cases. In United Kingdom the implementation is 
not extended to Northern Ireland. 
Therefore, around 40% of the ovine/caprine livestock are not complying with the 
requirements of Directive 92/102/EEC, including the Hellenic and the British livestock 
which are among the most numerous within European Union. 
1.1 List of holdings 
Each Member State has a registration system of holdings keeping sheep and goats. 
However, for at least half of them it is restricted to holdings with ovine or caprine 
animals entitled to the premium grant. In these cases, the lists nearly cover the provisions 
of Directive 92/102/EEC, but not its full extent. 
Moreover, as it is not legally required, in most cases the lists are not centralised and 
computerised and it cannot be insured they are always up to date. Furthermore, the 
information given on each holding and the animals kept is very dissimilar between 
Member States and sometimes within the same Member State. 
Only Denmark already has a central register of all holdings, providing a lot of data which 
may be cross checked via other data sources. Important information may be found about 
the keeper, the type and use of the animals, the number of animals, the practitioner 
veterinarian responsible, the disease status and any imports or exports. 
The SACRIMO computer system in United Kingdom includes all the holdings concerned 
in the biggest part of its territory but it does not give any movement records of animals. 
The SANITEL system of Belgium is under upgrading, it is limited though to holdings 
included within the premium scheme. Other centralised databases are foreseen or under 
development in most of the other Member States. In some of these cases the present 
manual or computerised regional systems should be deeply reconsidered to harmonise 
their registers if they should be put together in a national or European framework. 
1.2 Register on the holding 
Holding registers, complying with the provisions foreseen in Council Directive 
92/102/EEC have been fully implemented in nine(9) Member States. The registers exist 
only for some categories of holdings in France, Italy, Finland, Portugal, Sweden and 
United Kingdom. In Finland, Portugal and Sweden they are kept on the holdings 
involved in the premium scheme which is not far from all holdings.but do not cover all 
ovine and caprine animals. In United Kingdom they are implemented in Great Britain but 
not in Northern Ireland. In France and Italy they are poorly implemented, restricted to the 
necessity of the Brucellosis eradication programme in the latter case. 
As it is not compulsory, in six(6) Member States, the registers are not of the same model 
across the entire country which makes impossible some cumulative information. They 
just state the situation on a certain day of the year, and aggregate movements, in the cases 
of Austria, Germany and Spain. A lot of useful details on individual animals are missing 
in registers kept in Austria, Ellas, Ireland, Italy and United Kingdom. 
So, the registers provide generally very basic information as far as the disease control is 
concerned. Keeping track of individual animals is impossible in most cases. 
1.3 Identification marks 
The application of identification marks on every ovine or caprine animal which leaves its 
holding of birth is performed in ten(10) Member States. The provision is not applied in 
Finland, where only imported animals bear a mark, in France and in Northern Ireland. 
In Belgium mainly the animals eligible to premium support arrangements are subject to 
identification marking . In Ellas, only adult animals involved in the Brucellosis 
eradication programme and which are leaving the holding are marked. 
France, since 1 September 1997, has put in force a new national Decree of 30.05.97 regarding the 
identification of ovine animals. However, this Decree is not yet formally notified to Commission. 
The identification means chosen by Member States is mainly the eartag. Six of them 
apply only that, and only Portugal has not authorised it, prescribing the tattoo. Four 
Member States, accept both eartags or tattoos, while Italy places both eartag and tattoo on 
the same animal. United Kingdom and Ireland accept also temporary marks as "painting" 
mark resulting into a completely unreliable identification providing no data at all on the 
origin of the animal. 
In all Member States implementing these provisions, the animals are identified only if 
they are going to leave the holding. The identification mark scarcely provides all the 
useful data as country code, holding number, individual number. Only Italy seems to have 
in place an appropriate system. 
2. Identification of Porcine animals 
In accordance with the Council Directive 92/102/EEC, by 1.1.94, Member States should 
have in place an identification and registration system for porcine animals which should 
comprise: 
• an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep more than one pig not intended for 
the keeper's own use or consumption; 
• a holding register stating the number of animals present on the holding including data 
on movements; special provisions for the case of pure-bred and hybrid pigs which 
may be covered by an alternative registration system; 
• identification marks (eartag or tattoo) determining at least the holding or origin and 
the holding on which the animal was born, applied on animals at least before leaving 
the holding of birth; 
In relation to the registration of movements, Member States had the possibility to apply 
their national systems, provided that they have communicated them to the Commission 
by 1.7.1993 for eventual approval or amendments. There was no notification of this kind 
brought to the attention of the relevant Commission services. Animals bearing; a 
10 
temporary mark must be accompanied throughout their movement by a document which 
enables the origin, ownership, place of departure and destination to be determined. 
The implementation of the Community rules is more or less completed in twelve(12) 
Member States. Main deficiencies are found in Ellas and in Finland. A little information is 
available for Portugal. 
Therefore, around only 4% of the porcine livestock is not complying with the requirements 
of the 92/102/EEC Directive. 
2.1 L ist of h oldings 
Each Member State has a registration system of holdings keeping pigs. However, for at least 
one third of them it is restricted either to large holdings or to regional schemes. Moreover, 
as it is not legally required, in most cases the lists are not centralised and computerised and 
it cannot be insured they are always up to date. Furthermore, the information given on each 
holding and the animals kept is very dissimilar between Member States and sometimes 
within the same Member State. 
Only the Netherlands has already a central computerised register of all holdings, providing 
information on the holding number , the holding of origin, the holding of destination and the 
eartag number of the animals. 
The PRIMO computer system in United Kingdom include all the holdings concerned in 
the biggest part of its territory but it does not give any movement records of animals. The 
SANITEL system of Belgium is applied but being under upgrading. Centralised databases 
are foreseen or under development in most of the other Member States. In some of these 
cases the present manual or computerised regional systems should be deeply reconsidered 
to harmonise their registers if they should be put together in a national or European 
framework. 
11 
2.2 Register on the holding 
Holding registers complying with the provisions foreseen in Council Directive 92/102/EEC 
have been fully implemented in eleven(l 1) Member States. Detailed information on births, 
deaths and movements is recorded in The Netherlands and in Austria. Additionally, Austria 
provides for a uniform national model of farm registers. 
The registers exist only for some categories of holdings in Ellas and in Finland, and they are 
not used on a compulsory basis in Portugal. 
As it is not compulsory, in three(3) Member States, i.e. Germany, Italy and Sweden, the 
registers are not of the same model throughout the whole country which makes some 
cumulative data impossible. 
Therefore, the registers provide generally very basic data as far as the disease control is 
concerned. Keeping track of individual animals is impossible in most cases. 
2.3 Identification marks 
The application of identification marks on every porcine animal which leaves its holding of 
birth is performed in twelve(12) Member States. The provision is not applied in Finland, 
where only imported animals bear eartags, and in Ellas. For Portugal, the Commission had 
no available information. 
The identification means chosen by Member States is mainly the eartag, but the choice for a 
tattoo is possible in some cases in Denmark and in France. It is only Italy which requires the 
tattoo. The Dutch system also provides for the possibility of electronic identification but 
information is not available as far as its implementation is concerned. 
In most Member States concerned, the animals are identified only in case of leaving the 
holding. In Germany an eartag is fitted at the latest at the time of weaning, including data 
on the country code and an individual number for each animal. In The Netherlands, animals 
are identified before the age of six months or earlier if they are sold or otherwise transferred. 
12 
However, piglets moving to a fattening unit are not always identified, at least in Denmark, 
the Netherlands and Sweden. Pigs leaving the holding to be slaughtered are just slap-
tattooed in Denmark and in France; and moved without identification marks in Germany 
and Sweden. 
The identification mark scarcely provides all the useful data as country code, holding 
number, individual number. 
3. Overall Main Remarks 
The transposition of the European rules was late as far as the deadlines are concerned. In 
some cases the implementation procedure is not already completed, especially in Ellas, 
Finland and Portugal. 
The text of the Directive 92/102/EEC allows for lots of''flexible" interpretations which 
were highly used, resulting in several, incompatible, identification and registration 
systems. 
The situation is now mainly characterised by a lack of harmonisation, a diversity between 
Member States and even within the same Member State for most of them, which can not 
guarantee proper and adequate means for tracing diseases as it would have been necessary 
during the BSE crisis. 
The most important points which cause identification problems, from a veterinary point 
of view, are described hereafter: 
3.1 the list of holdings 
The list of all holdings, specifying the species kept and their keepers, is a provision of 
Directive 92/102/EEC which is not applied in all Member States in an efficient way. 
13 
Even in the cases where all farms are registered, the national list is frequently dispatched at 
regional levels, with different data or different method of assembling the data. These 
discrepancies make impossible to centralise the information, even at a national level. 
In most Member States there is no control concerning the reliability of the information and 
the permanent up-dating of the local lists. 
As a result of these deficiencies, the information system is responding slowly to any enquiry 
and can not ensure neither the presence of the data requested nor their accuracy. It can not 
be used to centralise the data and can not provide for any statistical analysis. It is of few, if 
any, help for tracing diseases or other veterinary purposes. 
In order to improve the system all the national registration lists should be computerised in a 
compatible way, at national and EU level. Furthermore, the requirements of Directive 
92/102/EEC should be specified and completed to promote the feasibility of the disease 
tracing. The data which should be available everywhere should be, as a rninimum: 
- obviously the address of the holding and the name of the keeper, 
- the registration number of the holding, 
- the type of production in order to sort out the farms if needed, and 
- the number of animals kept at a certain date. 
3.2 the register of each holding 
Member States have generally tried to cover the current requirements at their minimum 
extent. However, farm registers are not kept in all holdings and there is no control 
performed on behalf of the competent authority. It is quite common that these registers are 
not uniform and vary a lot on their form within a Member State and definitely, as it is not 
yet provided for, within the European Union. 
To know the number of animals kept each year on a certain date is not sufficient for disease 
control matters. The register should at least include complete data on births, deaths and 
movements on a daily, or very short term, basis, in order to make possible checking of the 
14 
movements during animal disease crises. In addition, a proper control system, should be 
established to ensure reliability. 
The information included in movement documents varies a lot among Member States. 
Frequently the document can not give a record of all movements performed nor the number 
and address of the holding of origin. In the case of a dead animal,' or in the case of a 
movement to a slaughter house, the document is often lost as it is not quite clear whose 
responsibility is to send it to the competent authority. These documents and their use should 
be improved on a European Union basis as they are an important identification element 
stating data which are implicit for any disease control research. 
3.3 the identification marks 
The Directive 92/102/EEC does not specify the type of the identification marks to be 
used. Therefore, in many cases particularly for sheep and goats the means for identifying 
the animals is just a paint marking procedure which does not ensure an appropriate 
identification as it can not distinguish among different holdings of birth. In these cases 
the origin of the animals remains always difficult to determine. 
An other difficulty of the determination of the origin arises from the replacement of 
identification eartag. If there is a necessity of replacement, in case of a loss for example, the 
new eartag should bear identical data to the previous one. 
The possibility for an alphanumeric code was not interpreted in the same way in all 
Member States. At the EU level, it results to a system of data which are not perceptible 
all over EU, and research on the origin of animals becomes complicated, and unreliable. 
The necessity to identify animals '* as soon as possible" was always interpreted by 
Member states to the extreme meaning that animals should be marked only before 
leaving the holding of origin, or even only before leaving a holding for slaughter. That 
system might work, if reliable, for meat traceability purposes but not for disease 
traceability or other veterinary purposes. 
15 
C. Possible improvements 
I. Needs and possible options 
The need for an effective identification network is not dictated solely by management or 
control considerations. It is indispensable in the event of an epizootic and not having one 
can prove very costly or result in major crises when there is a threat to public health. 
Despite the efforts deployed in all the Member States, however, the situation generally is 
not satisfactory. The systems already in place are of little or no value from a veterinary 
standpoint, either because of their inherent weaknesses or their lack of compatibility at 
European or in some cases national level. 
Experience has shown how difficult it is to introduce an operational system. On the other 
hand there is no point in adopting half-measures or making superficial adjustments or 
improvements to systems which in any case cannot provide a traceability function. 
In essence, if the objectives of an identification system are to be attained, a choice must 
be made among three options: 
• strict identification of the livestock, using conventional eartags with individual 
numbers indicating in particular the holdings of origin; or 
• strict identification of the livestock using electronic identification means; with 
individual numbering of the animals, or 
• more flexible conventional identification at individual level, but with a tighter 
approach to the keeping and centralising of reliable registers of holdings, so that the 
current situation and past and present livestock movements can be ascertained at any 
moment. 
' eartagging(not involving electronic devices) or tattooing 
16 
The first option is not really practicable, given present methods of marking animals. The 
second option would depend on progress made in the field of electronic identification. 
Commission, with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre, [is launching] a large 
scale field trial, called IDEA, to examine the feasibility of using electronic identification for 
bovine and ovine/caprine animals. 
Fourteen(14) project proposals from seven(7) Member States were presented to the 
Commission. These projects were examined within 1996 and following a selection 
procedure 10 out of the 14 were pre-selected. 
The trial period, which will last three years, will involve the use of transponders which may 
be either inserted into the animal or contained in an eartag. It is intended that the selected 
projects will start in 1998 and end by 31st December 2000. 
This project will make it possible to validate the following in real life situations: 
the implantation technique, 
the choice and reading of the transponders throughout the animals' lives(with the 
respective equipment), 
the technique for recovering the transponders, 
the organisational structure, and 
the information flows between the different levels of responsibility. 
Porcine animals do not form part of the objectives of the IDEA project because it was 
premium oriented. Some experiments are presently envisaged regarding the use of 
electronic identification means for porcine animals. 
Commission following Article 4 point 7 of the Council Regulation No 820/979 and 
Article 10 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC(see page 2 of this report) shall review the 
issue of electronic identification. In case that IDEA will produce positive results in 
conformity with Council Regulation No 820/97, Council Directive 92/102/EEC and 
"Not later than 31 December 2000 the Council, acting on the basis of a report from the Commission 
accompanied by any proposals, shall decide, on the possibility of introducing electronic arrangements in 
the light of progress achieved in this field". 
17 
Council Regulation No 3508/92, Commission will submit proposals to the Council to 
amend the provisions concerning eartags and to generalise the use of transponders for all 
Community livestock. 
Until the electronic identification becomes operational the third option should be taken 
into consideration as a minimal solution. Reinforcing the current provisions regarding 
identification and registration of ovine/caprine and porcine animals would improve 
disease traceability and maintain consumers' confidence to meat coming from these 
animal species. 
2. Guidance scheme 
Commission will propose to adopt electronic identification as soon as the system 
becomes fully operational. Meanwhile, Commission recommends a minimum system 
which has a certain value in terms of veterinary traceability as well as consumers' 
confidence. 
In the light of the experience gained, this minimum system should be based on a list of 
holdings that is easy to consult, on detailed and up-to-date registers of holdings, and on a 
method of marking animals that although limited to the most essential cases is 
nevertheless reliable. 
The common identification scheme for sheep and goats and the identification scheme for 
pigs should be based on the following: 
• The list of holdings would rapidly become comprehensive. It would feature a 
procedure - annual at least - for checking reliability and updating. It would have 
to allow rapid access to the identification number, the address, the type of 
production and the size of every holding on the list. The information would have 
to be collated and classified in such a way as to facilitate centralisation and 
aggregation. In the medium term, national systems would be centralised 
electronically into a compatible European network which would at all times have 
to reflect recorded livestock numbers. 
18 
• The holding register should record all livestock entering or leaving the holding, 
including births, deaths, loans, temporary movements, etc. It would have to be 
listed daily or perhaps in some cases - in particular small holdings - weekly. If 
they do not relate to individual animals, such data should at least cover highly 
specific categories. The minimum amount of information and the categories of 
animals would have to be determined at European level. 
• The animal movement documents would have to conform to a European model 
which allowed trade to be monitored easily and featured (a) a stub to be attached 
to the register for the holding and (b) a copy - retained by the 
consignee - accompanying the consignment concerned. The control and sanction 
procedures, which would be defined at national level, would have to be notified 
on request and be scrutinised at European level. 
• The marking of the animals would have to satisfy the following minimum 
requirements: 
At six months of age all sheep, goats and pigs animals would have to have an 
eartag indicating the number of the holding of origin; 
Eartagging would be compulsory for the movement of sheep, goats and pigs of 
age between two and six months. Where suitable, easily legible tattoos could 
replace eartags in the case of animals being sent from a holding to a 
slaughterhouse; 
For the movement of animals aged less than two months compulsory marking 
could be performed by means of some 'painting'. 
In order to be operational the identification system must at all costs feature mutually 
compatible national procedures and must therefore be harmonised at European level. The 
identification system for sheep and goats, and that for pigs, should therefore be 
introduced by way of a Council Regulation containing provisions that would be 
mandatory in every Member State. In order to take account of specific situations and 
19 
differences in terms of the progress achieved, the future Council Regulation should allow 
certain exceptions in justified cases, and permit Member States to adopt additional 
provisions at national level if they so wish, provided this does not entail any barrier to 
trade. 
20 
ANNEX I 
LIVESTOCK POPULATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 
IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM 
(Thousands of heads in 1995) 
BE 
DK 
DE 
EL 
ESP 
FR 
IRL 
IT 
LUX 
NL 
OS 
PT 
SF 
SV 
UK 
TOTAL BOVINE 
Presence 
in December(1) 
3147 
2094 
15890 
550 
5432 
20662 
6531 
7128 
204 
4558 
2323 
1317 
1179 
1762 
11673 
84450 Annual 
slaughter 
1047 
758 
4751 
315 
1990 
6011 
1515 
4732 
23 ' 
2379 
663 
396 
393 
531 
3292 
28796 OVINE/CAPRINE 
Presence 
in December(1) 
127 
79 
2429 
14788 
25982 
11388 
5772 
12129 
6 
1353 
392 
4235 
85 
488 
29574 
108827 Annual 
slaughter 
226 
69 
2069 
12531 
21976 
8706 
4264 
8443 
643 
280 
1288 
75 
189 
19234 
79993 PORCINE 
Presence(1) 
in December 
7215 
10709 
23737 
936 
17583 
14524 
1542 
7964 
68 " 
13958 
3703 
2400 
1395 
2331 
7203 
115268 Annual 
slaughter 
11294 
19873 
39361 
2268 
27539 
24859 
3003. 
11992 
112 
18616 
4954 
4209 
2066 
3743 
14388 
188277 
(1) December 1994 
11 
ANNEX II 
DIRECTIVE 92/102/EEC - TRANSPOSITION STATUS 
MEMBER STATE 
Deadline for transposition 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
ELLAS 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND . 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
THE NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN BOVINE 
01.10.93 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1995 
1994 
1995 
1996 
1996 
1995 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1995 
1995 
1995 PORCINE 
01.01.94 
1990 (National legislation 
introduced for the 
identification of pigs) 
1994 
1994 
1995 
1996 -
1995 
1996 
1996 
1995 
1994/1996 
1994 
1995 
1995 
NOT YET 
1995 OVINE/CAPRINE 
01.01.95 
1996 
1994 
1995 
1995 
1996 
NOT YET 
1996 
1996 
1995 
1996 
1994 
1996 
1995 
NOT YET 
1995 
22 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 207 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 15 16 
Catalogue number : CB-C0-98-221-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-32986-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
13