Report from the Commission on the identification and registration of animals
Date: 1998-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, food inspection, labelling, meat, trade mark

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 

2 

3 

4 

Directive  92/102/EEC 

Data  sources 

Transposition  of  the  legislation 

Identification  of  bovine  animals 
5 

B.  OVINE/CAPRINE AND PORCINE ANIMALS 

1 

2 

3 

Identification  of  Ovine  and  caprine  animals 

Identification  of porcine  animals 

Overall  main  remarks 

C.  POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS 

1 

2 

Needs  and possible  options 

Guidance  scheme 

Annex J 
Annex II 

Livestock distribution by Member State 
Directive 92/102/EEC - Transposition status 

1 * 

1^ 

2 

3 

7 

1 

10 

13 

16 

16 

18 

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) 

BOVINE 

OVINE/CAPRINE 

PORCINE 

Presence 
in December(1) 

Annual 
slaughter 

Presence 
in December(1) 

Annual 
slaughter 

Presence(1) 
in December 

Annual 
slaughter 

BE 
DK 
DE 
EL 
ESP 
FR 
IRL 
IT 
LUX 
NL 
OS 
PT 
SF 
SV 
UK 

3147 
2094 
15890 
550 
5432 
20662 
6531 
7128 
204 
4558 
2323 
1317 
1179 
1762 
11673 

1047 
758 
4751 
315 
1990 
6011 
1515 
4732 

23  ' 

2379 
663 
396 
393 
531 
3292 

127 
79 
2429 
14788 
25982 
11388 
5772 
12129 
6 
1353 
392 
4235 
85 
488 
29574 

226 
69 
2069 
12531 
21976 
8706 
4264 
8443 

643 
280 
1288 
75 
189 
19234 

7215 
10709 
23737 
936 
17583 
14524 
1542 
7964 

68  " 

13958 
3703 
2400 
1395 
2331 
7203 

11294 
19873 
39361 
2268 
27539 
24859 
3003. 
11992 
112 
18616 
4954 
4209 
2066 
3743 
14388 

TOTAL 

84450 

28796 

108827 

79993 

115268 

188277 

(1)  December  1994 

11 

ANNEX II 

DIRECTIVE 92/102/EEC  -  TRANSPOSITION STATUS 

MEMBER STATE 

BOVINE 

PORCINE 

OVINE/CAPRINE 

Deadline for transposition 

01.10.93 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

ELLAS 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

IRELAND . 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

THE NETHERLANDS 

PORTUGAL 

UNITED KINGDOM 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1995 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1996 

1995 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1995 

1995 

1995 

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 

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