Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/1 |

---

SPECIAL REPORT No 6/2004

The organisation of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals in the European Union together with the Commission’s replies

(pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 248(4) of the EC Treaty)

(2005/C 29/01)

![Image](./../../../resource.html?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2005.029.01.0001.01.ENG.xhtml.C_2005029EN.01000102.tif.jpg)

CONTENTS

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| I-X | SUMMARY |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1-6 | INTRODUCTION |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1-3 | General context |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4-6 | The Court’s audit |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 7-32 | GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 7-10 | Size of the bovine sector |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 11-17 | Setting up the cattle identification and registration system – background and justification |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 18-26 | What is the cattle identification and registration system? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 27-32 | ROLES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CATTLE IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | The Council and the European Parliament |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 28 | The Commission |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 29-31 | The Member States |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 32 | The various keepers of cattle |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 33-46 | FINDINGS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 33-34 | Introduction |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 35-37 | Legislation makes no provision for exchanges of information between the databases |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 38-39 | Community legislation is not sufficiently precise |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 40-41 | The Commission has no mandate to adopt implementing measures in respect of national databases |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 42-46 | There is room for improvement in the Commission’s rules concerning on-the-spot checks and penalties |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 47-78 | FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 47-54 | Absence of precise rules on the management of national databases |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 55-64 | Absence of criteria for recognition of the fully operational character of databases |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 65-71 | Supervision by the Commission |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 72-77 | Inconsistencies in the management of premiums |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 72-74 | Bovine premiums subject to controls in the context of the Integrated Administration and Control System |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 75-77 | Exceptional support measures for the beef market following the BSE crisis |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 78-91 | FINDINGS OF THE COURT’S AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES VISITED |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 92-99 | CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS |

The Commission's replies

SUMMARY

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| I. | Identifying and registering the bovine herd is an essential prerequisite in guaranteeing the traceability of beef and veal and is also an element in the conditions attached to the various bovine premiums. These premiums amounted to more than 7 000 million euro in 2002 and more than 8 000 million euro in 2004. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| II. | The main objective of the audit was to evaluate the cattle identification and registration system, at the Commission (design, implementation controls and follow-up) and in the Member States (operational system allowing effective monitoring of animals from birth until slaughter and allowing verification of correct payment of all direct aid). The audit was carried out in the four Member States with the largest bovine herds (Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| III. | The identification system has four components: ear tags, passports, herd registers and the computerised database containing the details of all cattle. This database is one component of the system and was to be operational on 31 December 1999 at the latest. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| IV. | Cattle identification and registration systems were set up in the four Member States more than two years after the target date of 31 December 1999 and still have some weaknesses. For example, the passports of animals traded between Member States are not monitored, there is no exchange of information between national databases, there are delays in updating the databases and the level of reliability of the information contained in the databases must often be considered inadequate. The main finding is that the cattle identification and registration system that was designed does not guarantee the traceability of intra-Community or extra-Community cattle movements. These movements nevertheless involve approximately three million head of cattle per year (approximately 4 % of the herd). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| V. | The general framework of the system was laid down by the Parliament and the Council. The Commission was given the task of implementing certain components of the system, but responsibility for implementing the system lies with the Member States. The legislation did not include procedures for Member States to exchange data on cattle movements and the exchange was in any case compromised by the fact that data format varies from one Member State to another. All attempts to reconcile information from the various databases have failed. The Member States interpreted certain elements of Community regulations in different ways, in respect of the deadlines for tagging and reporting, the fundamental concept of ‘keeper of bovine animals’ and return of animal passports. The Commission was not given responsibility for adopting implementing measures for setting up and checking the databases. This explains, in part, the differences found between the Member States. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| VI. | The control and penalty systems in place have not been adapted to ensure that they are appropriate to the various keepers of cattle, such as traders, assembly centres or slaughterhouses. In addition, the databases contain certain data, such as retagging rates and delays in registration, which the Member States do not use as control instruments. Control practices also vary greatly from one Member State to another. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| VII. | As far as checks on the implementation and monitoring of the cattle identification and registration system are concerned, the Commission has interpreted its own role in a restrictive manner and has given no guidance on the setting-up of the databases. No standardised management rules have been issued and no quality indicator has been developed as regards the operation of the databases. The procedures for recognising the ‘fully operational character’ of the databases are unsatisfactory and the Commission's role is too often limited to confirming the technical existence of the databases, without evaluating their actual operation on the basis of precise management rules or predefined quality indicators. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| VIII. | The Commission should be given adequate resources to take on a genuine guiding role in the system, in particular by drawing up standardised management rules, quality indicators and a format for the exchange of data between national databases. The exchange of data between Member States, and even with third countries, should be organised with a view to retaining control over intra-Community and extra-Community movements. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| IX. | The administrative checks applied in the various Member States should also be compared and specifications provided for cross-checks to be carried out between the identification and registration databases and the IACS databases before the various premiums are paid. The system of on-the-spot checks should also be reviewed, including the penalty mechanisms, and specific approaches for the different types of keepers of cattle should be drawn up and an approach imposed which is fully integrated with IACS. |

INTRODUCTION

General context

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | The specific regulation concerning the identification and registration of bovine animals[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0001) (cattle), on the one hand, establishes a system for the identification and registration of cattle at the production stage and, on the other, creates a specific Community labelling system in the beef sector. These two systems are interdependent: the fact that cattle can be traced by means of the identification and registration system is a prerequisite for guaranteeing the safety of the food chain through the labelling system. Veterinary and health reasons, and some of the requirements relating to the management of a number of Community animal premium schemes, all demand an efficient system of cattle identification and registration. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | This report focuses on the cattle identification and registration system and does not deal with the labelling of the marketed products. The system comprises ear tags as a means of identifying individual animals, animal passports, individual registers kept on each holding and computerised databases set up by the Member States. The computerised databases, which were to be set up by all Member States by 31 December 1999, are an important part of the system. They must contain all the data on all the movements of all cattle from birth through to slaughter. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | The computerised databases containing the cattle records were originally set up for veterinary purposes[(2)](#ntr2-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0002), but are also used by premium managers to carry out administrative checks in the context of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)[(3)](#ntr3-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0003). The cattle identification and registration system, and, especially, the computerised databases containing the cattle records, is thus an important component in the Integrated Administrative and Control System (IACS) for the efficient administration and control of bovine premiums[(4)](#ntr4-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0004). |

The Court's audit

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | The Court has examined cattle identification and registration on various occasions[(5)](#ntr5-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0005). The observations made on the basis of these previous audits confirm that the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals is an essential part of a whole complex of control systems and that shortcomings exist in relation to the approval, management and content of the cattle identification and registration databases. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | The objective of the audit was to examine the design of the cattle identification and registration system introduced at European Union level (see paragraphs 33 to 46) and to analyse the controls and follow-up carried out by the Commission to verify that the system has been implemented correctly in the various Member States (see paragraphs 47 to 77). The audit also aimed to verify that an effective system for identifying and registering cattle had indeed been established and to evaluate whether, in terms of the underlying principles and implementing rules, the regulations setting up the system made it possible to achieve the prescribed objectives. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 6. | The audit also evaluated the level of the system’s development in four Member States, namely Germany (Bavaria and Saxony), France, Italy and the United Kingdom (Great Britain) (see paragraphs 78 to 91). The aim was to examine the implementation of the system by checking that the proposed system ensures that cattle are traceable on the European level, thus making it possible for all movements of cattle to be tracked from birth or importation from a third country through to slaughter or export from the European Union. In 2002, 64 % of the EU bovine herd was to be found in the four Member States visited and they received almost 59 % of bovine premiums. The audit also took into consideration the Commission’s work and, in particular, the reports on inspections in the Member States. |

GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM

Size of the bovine sector

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 7. | According to the survey carried out by Eurostat, there were 81,1 million head of cattle in the European Union in May/June 2002[(6)](#ntr6-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0006). France, with 20,5 million head, had more than a quarter of the European herd, followed by Germany and the United Kingdom with 14,0 and 10,4 million head respectively, i.e. 17,3 and 12,8 % of the European herd. Italy’s herd, like that of Ireland, numbered more than 7,2 million head (8,9 %) and Spain’s more than 6 million (see diagram 1).  Image |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 8. | Intra-Community movements are relatively extensive, whereas trade with third countries appears more limited. In 2001 almost three million cattle were involved in intra-Community and extra-Community trade, which represents around 4 % of the European herd (see diagrams 2 and 3). According to the information available, exits of cattle were very considerable in the case of France (1,4 million animals) and Germany (0,5 million animals). These two Member States account for more than 75 % of exits to other Community countries. In contrast, exits of animals to other Member States involved fewer than 25 animals in the case of Finland, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Greece. The same phenomenon was observed in the case of entries, where Italy (1,3 million animals), Spain (0,5 million), the Netherlands (0,4 million) and France (0,2 million) recorded 93 % of entries from other Member States. The 11 other Member States registered less than 7 % of intra-Community entries. The variations observed in respect of cattle flow are a reflection of the specific characteristics of the beef and veal sector in the different Member States. For example, France is renowned for the large number of beef farms specialising in the production of young animals for sale to other Member States, where they are fattened. Italy, which has a deficit in beef, is a particular case in point.  Image Image |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9. | Budgetary expenditure on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, which is constantly increasing, came to 4 600 million euro, i.e. 11,5 % of total expenditure on agriculture, in 1999, and to 7 100 million euro, i.e. 16,4 % of agricultural expenditure, in 2002. The budget provision for 2004 totalled 8 100 million euro, i.e. 17,2 % of total expenditure on agriculture (see table 1). This rapid growth in expenditure in recent years is the result of the increase in direct aid and the introduction of new forms of aid, such as the slaughter premium.  Table 1  Expenditure on beef/veal 1999 to 2004   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | (million euro) | | | | | | | | | Budget heading | Categories of expenditure | 1999 expenditure | 2000 expenditure | 2001 expenditure | 2002 expenditure | 2003 Budget | 2004 Budget | | B1-210 | Export refunds on beef/veal | 594,9 | 661,3 | 362,6 | 386,7 | 534,0 | 396,0 | | B1-211 | Intervention storage of beef/veal | -36,6 | -82,7 | 325,8 | 104,1 | -1,0 | -33,0 | | Direct aid | | | | | | | | | B1-2120 | Suckler cow premium | 1 594,7 | 1 565,9 | 1 705,3 | 1 888,3 | 2 060,0 | 2 060,0 | | B1-2121 | Additional premiums for suckler cows | 63,3 | 62,5 | 71,6 | 70,9 | 97,0 | 97,0 | | B1-2122 | Special premiums for male bovine animals | 1 297,3 | 1 299,3 | 1 530,0 | 1 748,4 | 1 967,0 | 1 959,0 | | B1-2123 | Deseasonalisation premiums | 23,7 | 2,6 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | | B1-2124 | Slaughter premiums |  |  | 493,7 | 1 024,8 | 1 710,0 | 1 750,0 | | B1-2125 | Extensification premiums | 714,2 | 715,5 | 913,8 | 942,6 | 1 018,0 | 1 020,0 | | B1-2128 | Additional payments |  |  | 147,8 | 295,3 | 483,0 | 483,0 | |  | Subtotal | 3 693,2 | 3 645,8 | 4 862,2 | 5 970,3 | 7 335,0 | 7 369,0 | | Direct aid in connection with BSE | | | | | | | | | B1-2124 | Processing premiums for young male calves | 76,1 | 8,4 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | | B1-2126 | Exceptional support measures | 218,7 | 292,5 | 245,6 | 242,4 | 344,0 | 327,0 | | B1-2127 | Compulsory slaughter programme | 11,4 | 20,9 | 54,8 | 68,3 | 100,0 | 100,0 | | B1-2128 | Early slaughter premiums for calves | 35,6 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | | B1-2129 | Other intervention | 0,0 | 1,6 | 212,4 | 329,4 | 100,0 | 10,0 | |  | Subtotal | 341,8 | 323,4 | 512,8 | 640,1 | 544,0 | 437,0 | | B1-219 | Other interventions | -14,7 | -8,3 | -9,4 | -29,3 | -8,0 | -8,0 | | B1-21 | Total beef/veal | 4 578,6 | 4 539,5 | 6 054,0 | 7 071,9 | 8 404,0 | 8 161,0 | |  | Direct aid as a percentage of total expenditure on beef/veal | 80,7 % | 80,3 % | 80,3 % | 84,4 % | 87,3 % | 90,3 % | | B1 | Total expenditure on agriculture (not inclundingmonetary reserve) | 39 540,8 | 40 466,7 | 42 083,3 | 43 214,3 | 44 780,5 | 44 761,4 | |  | Expenditure on beef/veal as a percentage of total expenditure on agriculture | 11,6 % | 11,2 % | 14,4 % | 16,4 % | 18,8 % | 18,2 % | | Source: 1999 to 2002: Financial reports on EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure; 2003: Budget; 2004: Preliminary draft budget. | | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10. | Expenditure linked to direct aid rose from 3 700 million euro in 1999 to 6 000 million euro in 2002, i.e. 80,7 % and 84,4 % respectively of total expenditure on beef and veal. The budget for 2004 provides for a further increase in direct aid to 7 300 million euro, i.e. 90,2 % of total expenditure on beef and veal. Table 2 shows the distribution of direct aid between the various Member States in 2002, while table 3 shows the distribution between the Member States, in 2002, of direct aid in connection with BSE.  Table 2  Direct aid paid in 2002 for bovine animals, by Member State   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | (million euro) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Budget heading | Category of expenditure | BE | DK | DE | EL | ES | FR | IE | IT | LU | NL | AT | PT | FI | SE | UK | EU–15 | | B1-2120 | Suckler cow premium | 70,5 | 19,5 | 105,4 | 27,9 | 251,4 | 670,2 | 218,0 | 94,3 | 3,3 | 9,3 | 54,8 | 50,1 | 5,0 | 24,9 | 283,7 | 1 888,3 | | B1-2121 | Additional premiums for suckler cows | 19,4 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 28,7 | 1,8 | 0,0 | 6,8 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,1 | 6,6 | 0,3 | 0,0 | 7,2 | 70,9 | | B1-2122 | Special premiums for male bovine animals | 43,3 | 38,2 | 312,5 | 27,2 | 130,4 | 343,3 | 251,7 | 74,4 | 3,6 | 18,3 | 52,9 | 31,9 | 36,6 | 41,5 | 342,6 | 1 748,4 | | B1-2124 | Slaughter premiums | 34,1 | 31,0 | 195,2 | 6,0 | 95,6 | 218,4 | 93,5 | 79,4 | 3,7 | 66,4 | 32,4 | 17,0 | 17,7 | 22,6 | 111,8 | 1 024,8 | | B1-2125 | Extensification premiums | 3,1 | 6,2 | 52,6 | 20,1 | 153,7 | 240,1 | 144,5 | 15,1 | 1,0 | 1,2 | 43,5 | 30,2 | 17,7 | 29,0 | 184,6 | 942,6 | | B1-2128 | Additional payments | 26,1 | 7,9 | 55,8 | 2,1 | 21,0 | 60,2 | 20,2 | 23,8 | 0,0 | 16,7 | 7,9 | 3,9 | 4,1 | 5,5 | 40,1 | 295,3 | | Total | | 196,5 | 102,8 | 721,5 | 83,3 | 680,8 | 1 534,0 | 727,9 | 293,8 | 11,6 | 111,9 | 191,6 | 139,7 | 81,4 | 123,5 | 970,0 | 5 970,3 | | As a percentage of Member State's expenditure | | 3,3 % | 1,7 % | 12,1 % | 1,4 % | 11,4 % | 25,7 % | 12,2 % | 4,9 % | 0,2 % | 1,9 % | 3,2 % | 2,3 % | 1,4 % | 2,1 % | 16,2 % | 100,0 % | | Source: Commission document of 11.12.2002 - EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure 16.10.2001 - 15.10.2002 (AGRI/72/2002). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |      |  |  | | --- | --- | | % of total direct aid received by Germany, France, Italy and United Kingdom | 58,9 % |     Table 3  Direct aid paid in 2002 in connection with BSE, by Member State   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | (million euro) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Budget heading | Category of expenditure | BE | DK | DE | EL | ES | FR | IE | IT | LU | NL | AT | PT | FI | SE | UK | EU–15 | | B1-2126 | Exceptional support measures | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 242,4 | 242,4 | | B1-2127 | Compulsory slaughter programme | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 38,3 | 29,4 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,6 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 68,3 | | B1-2129 | Other interventions | 6,9 | 1,7 | 46,6 | 1,1 | 23,3 | 165,1 | 80,9 | 0,0 | 3,4 | -2,3 | 0,3 | 2,4 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 329,4 | | Total | | 6,9 | 1,7 | 46,6 | 1,1 | 23,3 | 203,4 | 110,3 | 0,0 | 3,4 | -2,3 | 0,3 | 3,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 242,4 | 640,1 | | As a percentage of Member State's expenditure | | 1,1 % | 0,3 % | 7,3 % | 0,2 % | 3,6 % | 31,8 % | 17,2 % | 0,0 % | 0,5 % | -0,4 % | 0,0 % | 0,5 % | 0,0 % | 0,0 % | 37,9 % | 100,0 % | | Source: Commission document of 11.12.2002 - EAGGF-Guarantee expenditure 16.10.2001 - 15.10.2002 (AGRI/72/2002). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |      |  |  | | --- | --- | | % of total direct aid received by Germany, France, Italy and UK in connection with BSE | 76,9 % | |

Setting up the cattle identification and registration system – background and justification

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 11. | Well before 1992, a number of Member States had set up cattle identification and registration systems on their own initiative. These national systems did not guarantee that the identification numbers were unique, with the result that several animals in the same Member State could have the same identification number. Originally, these national identification systems were set up mainly in response to veterinary concerns and were not designed to fulfil the objectives of traceability, in the strict sense of the word. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 12. | The reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in 1992 appreciably increased existing direct aid, such as premiums for male cattle and the suckler cow premiums, and introduced new ones such as the deseasonalisation premium[(7)](#ntr7-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0007) and the extensification premium[(8)](#ntr8-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0008). A new system for cattle identification and registration was introduced at that time to make more efficient control of budgetary expenditure possible and to avoid undue payment of premiums. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 13. | The 1992 reform thus made provision for the simultaneous introduction of a compulsory cattle identification and registration system[(9)](#ntr9-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0009) and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and required cross-checks[(10)](#ntr10-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0010) between these databases with the aim of checking the direct payments made. The identification and registration system should have been operational on 1 October 1993 and the IACS databases on 1 January 1997. The majority of Member States complied with neither of these deadlines. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 14. | Animal health problems, and the first BSE crisis in particular, in 1996, led the Council to review the provisions governing cattle identification and registration and to demand traceability of cattle from birth to slaughter and from slaughterhouse to product distributor. In 1997 the Council therefore decided to reinforce the legislation and to replace the Directive with a Regulation[(11)](#ntr11-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0011) setting out three main phases in order to achieve the intended objective. As from 1 January 1998, all cattle born, imported or intended for intra-Community trade were to be given an identification number and registered. As from 31 December 1999 fully operational computerised databases were to make it possible to trace cattle from birth to slaughter or death, and on 1 January 2000 a compulsory labelling system was to be introduced for beef. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 15. | Due to the difficulties encountered by the Council and Parliament in defining labelling standards and the practical constraints pointed out by distributors, the deadline of 1 January 2000 for the implementation of a compulsory labelling system for beef was postponed until 1 January 2002[(12)](#ntr12-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0012). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 16. | The introduction of new premiums (slaughter premiums and additional payments[(13)](#ntr13-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0013)), in the context of the Agenda 2000 reform, made suckler cows eligible for one or more forms of direct aid. According to the new market rules, only identified and registered animals qualify for the direct payments provided[(14)](#ntr14-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0014). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 17. | In addition, cattle identification and registration, and the traceability which should be the result, are relevant to all expenditure for beef and veal[(15)](#ntr15-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0015), including expenditure on public storage and export refunds. In fact, public storage and refunds can only be granted for beef and beef products which are labelled in such a way that a link can be established with the initial identification of the animal[(16)](#ntr16-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0016). |

What is the cattle identification and registration system?

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 18. | The key components of the system are ear tags for individual identification of animals, animal passports, the individual registers kept on each holding and the computerised databases set up in every Member State. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 19. | All animals born on farms after 31 December 1997, or traded within the Community after this date, are identified by tags approved by the competent authority, attached to each ear. The two ear tags bear the same unique identification code, which makes it possible to identify each animal individually, together with the holding where it was born (see photograph 1).  Image Image |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 20. | This core information[(17)](#ntr17-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0017) is included in the passports, in the registers and in the computerised databases. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 21. | As from 1 January 1998, for every animal that is to be identified the competent authority in the Member State issues a passport within 14 days of notification of the animal’s birth or, in the case of animals imported from third countries, within 14 days of notification of its new identification. When an animal is moved, its passport accompanies it. In addition to the core data, the passport also provides additional information[(18)](#ntr18-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0018) (see photograph 2).  Image |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 22. | Every keeper of animals, with the exception of transporters, must keep an up-to-date register[(19)](#ntr19-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0019). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 23. | The computerised cattle databases were to be operational in all Member States on 31 December 1999 and were to contain various items of information on the animals and holdings. For every animal, the database includes the identification code, date of birth, gender, breed or information on the animal’s coat, together with the identification code of the mother (or, in the case of animals imported from third countries, the identification number given on entry, which is linked to the original identification number), the identification number of the holding of birth, the identification numbers of all the holdings where the animal has been kept and the date of each movement. The database also includes the date of slaughter or death. For every holding, the database contains the name and address of the keeper and an identification number consisting of a code of a maximum of 12 characters in addition to the country code. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 24. | The database must make it possible to find, at any given time, the identification numbers of all the cattle on a given holding, and all the movements of all the animals from birth or, in the case of animals imported from third countries, from the holding of entry[(20)](#ntr20-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0020), into the Member State. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 25. | To ensure proper implementation of the identification and registration system, the competent authority in each Member State must carry out a minimum number of on-the-spot checks[(21)](#ntr21-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0021), with the aim of verifying the identity of all animals on a holding. These checks include a physical check, in order to verify the ear tags, a documentary check to verify that the register has been kept properly and that documentary evidence of entries and exits exists, as well as checks that the obligation to report all movements (births, deaths, purchases, sales, loans) to the database manager has been met. The farmers to be checked are selected on the basis of a risk analysis. The rules provide for penalties which are proportionate to the gravity of the infringements discovered[(22)](#ntr22-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0022). Box 1 below summarises the penalties to be applied in connection with the infringements discovered.  If, for some animals, the identification and registration requirements are not fully complied with, a restriction is imposed on the movement of those animals until the requirements have been fully complied with.If the number of animals for which the identification and registration requirements are not fully complied with is in excess of 20 % of the herd, a restriction is imposed on the movement of all the animals present on the holding.If a keeper fails to report movements, births or deaths, a restriction on movement of animals to and from that holding is imposed.If one or more animals on a holding comply with none of the identification and registration provisions laid down, a restriction is imposed on movement of all animals to and from that holding.If the keeper of an animal cannot prove its identity within two working days, the animal must be destroyed without delay under the supervision of the veterinary authorities and without compensation. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 26. | The Member States with computerised databases which the Commission has deemed to be fully operational may decide to discontinue issuing passports for movements of cattle within the Member State concerned; in this case, only cattle intended for intra-Community trade are required to have a passport containing data based on the computerised database[(23)](#ntr23-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0023). The Member States may also reduce the rate of on-the-spot checks from 10 to 5 %[(24)](#ntr24-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0024), if they have a fully operational database which enables them to carry out effective cross-checks. |

ROLES AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CATTLE IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM

The Council and the European Parliament

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 27. | In respect of the protection of human health[(25)](#ntr25-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0025), the Council and the European Parliament adopt the basic regulations following a proposal by the Commission. In the case of agriculture, the Council adopts regulations and directives proposed by the Commission after consultation with the European Parliament. |

The Commission

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 28. | Basic Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000[(26)](#ntr26-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0026) stipulates that the Commission is to be assisted by a management committee made up of representatives of the Member States (EAGGF Committee[(27)](#ntr27-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0027)) when taking the necessary measures to implement the system and, in particular, the provisions concerning ear tags, passports and registers, the minimum checks to be carried out, the application of administrative sanctions and the transitional arrangements. In addition, the basic regulation[(28)](#ntr28-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0028) also specifies that the Commission’s experts, together with the competent authorities, must, on the one hand, verify that the Member States comply with the legislation and, on the other, carry out on-the-spot checks in order to verify that controls are implemented in conformity with the rules in force. Within this framework, the Commission is assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health[(29)](#ntr29-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0029). Where the Commission deems it appropriate, in view of the findings arising from the checks, the situation is reviewed by the committee. The Commission may adopt the necessary decisions. The Regulation also stipulates that the Commission is to monitor developments in the situation and may, where necessary, amend or repeal decisions. |

The Member States

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 29. | It is the responsibility of each Member State to set up a system for identifying and registering cattle in accordance with the provisions of legislation. The Member States define and administer the ear tags, define the format of the farm registers and issue the animal passports. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 30. | The Member States lay down the procedures for declaring cattle movements in order to keep their national databases up to date. These procedures are either manual (report forms) or automated (transfer of files, Internet connection, etc). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 31. | The Member States are also obliged to carry out checks on keepers of cattle and to draw up an annual report on the findings of these checks. This report must be submitted to the Commission. |

The various keepers of cattle

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 32. | In relation to cattle, ‘keeper’ means any natural or legal person responsible for the animals, whether on a permanent or on a temporary basis, including during transport or at a market. With the exception of transporters, every keeper must report to the competent authority all movements to and from the holding and all births and deaths. Keepers must also maintain an up-to-date register, make entries in the passports, attach ear tags at birth and retag if the tags are lost[(30)](#ntr30-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0030). |

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

Introduction

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 33. | The legislative system adopted in respect of cattle identification and registration must be appropriate to the objectives to be achieved. If the objective is to be able to track all cattle movements on the territory of the European Union, the legislative framework must be appropriate to this objective. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 34. | The basic legislation governing the identification and registration of cattle is drafted in general terms and leaves the responsibility for setting up the system, on their own territory, to the Member States. The Commission has adopted implementing measures in respect of ear tags, passports, registers, controls[(31)](#ntr31-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0031) and penalties[(32)](#ntr32-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0032), but not in respect of the computerised databases. |

Legislation makes no provision for exchanges of information between the databases

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 35. | Community legislation sets out the measures required for veterinary and zootechnical checks. Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the national computerised databases are fully operational as soon as possible. Since it was aware of the risks and realised that, in order to be able to track animals and animal movements, it was necessary to introduce a transparent procedure for the exchange of data between Member States on animals and animal movements, the Commission drew up a proposal to this effect. The Council did not follow up this proposal. Legislation adopted in July 2000 makes no provision for exchanges of data between the various national databases, only for mutual assistance procedures between Member States. The ANIMO system allows information to be communicated between Member States in respect of batches of animals traded, but does not provide information on the identity of the animals making up the batches. As a result there is no systematic communication between Member States concerning the state of health of the animals traded or their eligibility for premiums. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 36. | At any rate, the exchange of data between the various national databases was compromised from the outset because the format of the data differs from one Member State to another. In the absence of a mechanism for exchanging data between databases, it is possible to monitor cattle movements by verifying whether the passports of traded animals are returned. However, the passport return mechanism does not work (see paragraph 38(c)). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 37. | At present the Commission has no detailed description of the monitoring of movements overall, nor any study of how it works in the context of the identification and registration system. In the absence of any exchange of data between national databases, the only assurance it can give is that the system allows effective monitoring, at least in theory, of all movements of cattle on Community territory. |

Community legislation is not sufficiently precise

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 38. | The current legislation has a number of imprecisions and inconsistencies, which give rise to different ways of processing the data, depending on the Member State, and may even be sources of errors.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | (a) | Keepers’ obligations concerning registers have not been adapted to meet the requirements of the different types of keeper  All keepers of cattle, with the exception of transporters, must keep an up-to-date register, manually or by computer, containing certain obligatory items of information. The keeping of this register has not been adapted to the requirements of the different keepers’ activities. It ought to be possible to take into consideration the characteristics which are specific to certain categories of keeper, such as traders, assembly centres, or slaughterhouses[(33)](#ntr33-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0033). In view of the large number of movements involved, it is not possible for a trader or the manager of an assembly centre to enter the information relating to the individual identification of all animals in a traditional register. The professional practices of these keepers are not compatible with the current requirements concerning the keeping of registers. Similar constraints exist at slaughterhouse level. |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (b) | The term ‘keeper of bovine animals’ is interpreted in different ways  The legislation has defined a keeper as any natural or legal person responsible for the animals, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, including during transportation or at a market. The aim of this broad definition is to include all the categories of person who take charge of cattle from an animal’s birth or entry into the European Union until its death or exit from the European Union. The Member States have sometimes interpreted the term ‘keeper’ in different ways. France has included assembly centres and knackers' yards in its cattle identification and registration system. This is not the case in the three other Member States visited. |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (c) | The passports of dead animals and of animals exported to another Member State, for which new passports are issued, are not always invalidated  In the Member States visited, passports are required for all movements of cattle. The legislation stipulates that when an animal dies, the passport must be returned by the keeper to the competent authority at the latest seven days after the animal’s death. If the animal is sent to a slaughterhouse, the manager of the slaughterhouse is responsible for returning the passport to the competent authority. The mechanisms for returning passports are either non-existent or ineffective. Detailed implementing rules governing the return of passports and checks on the returns have not been specified. In addition, no procedure for invalidating these passports has been laid down. In the absence of systematic exchanges of information between Member States and in view of the lack of precision in the legislation, at the level of procedures, checks and sanctions, passports which have not been invalidated could be reused in an irregular manner. In the case of cattle from another Member State, if the passport is not reissued in the Member States of destination, there is no procedure for returning information on the animals included in the national databases. Furthermore, if a passport is reissued, the procedures for returning the old passport to the Member State in which it was issued are either non-existent or ineffective. |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (d) | It is sometimes difficult to establish a link with the country or holding of origin. For animals from third countries, the system in place is based on the cattle being identified on the first holding of destination and thus on ‘naturalisation’ on entry, which does not always allow a link to be established with the country or holding of origin. | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 39. | The options offered by the Community legislation complicate the system unnecessarily:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | (a) | Internal movements within a Member State, with or without a passport  The option of requiring passports, or not, for internal movements within a Member State is available to Member States which have a database recognised as fully operational by the Commission by 31 December 1999 at the latest. In the Member States visited, the Court noted that the tests carried out before an animal’s passport was issued, tests which were undoubtedly of varying quality, made it possible to filter the information entered in the database and this, in turn, increased the reliability of the databases. Legislation[(34)](#ntr34-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0034) allows Member States to opt to abandon passports for internal movements. In this event, the checks that are carried out must provide assurance that the data contained in the databases are sufficiently reliable. |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (b) | The length of the cattle identification numbers varies (two letters identifying the Member State followed by a maximum of 12 digits)  With regard to trade in cattle, the non-standardisation of ear-tag codes causes administrative problems for a number of Member States. France, for example, which only uses 10 digits, creates virtual numbers to allow inclusion, in the database, of animals from other Member States. Greater standardisation of identification numbers would have made it possible for movements of cattle between Member States to be registered automatically. The use of compatible, or standard, identification codes would make efficient and accurate recording of data possible. | |

The Commission has no mandate to adopt implementing measures in respect of national databases

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 40. | In contrast to the provisions concerning other parts of the system (ear tags, passports, registers, on-the-spot checks, administrative sanctions and transitional measures), the Commission has no legal competence[(35)](#ntr35-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0035) to adopt implementing rules on setting up and controlling the various national databases[(36)](#ntr36-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0036) (see paragraph 28). This major weakness in the system explains the differences noted in the Member States visited, as every Member State has developed its own database which operates in accordance with criteria which the Member State itself defined (see table 4).  Table 4  Summary of the findings of audits carried out by the Court of Auditors in the first six months of 2002[(37)](#ntr37-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0037)   |  |  | | --- | --- | |  | Satisfactory | |  | Adequate | |  | Inadequate |   Source: Court of Auditors.   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Member States | Ear tags | | | Registers kept on holdings | | | Passports | | | Computerised databases | | | | | | | | Ear tag format | Uniqueness of ear tags, tagging of all cattle | Quality of ear tags | Format of register containing all information required | Register used by farmers | Register used by slaughterhouses, wholesalers and traders | Format of passports | Reliability of passports | Monitoring of passports of bovine animals traded between Member States | Quality of information contained in movement reports for the purposes of monitoring flows | Processing of movement reports | Mechanism for detection of movement anomalies | Administration of movement anomalies | Synchronisation of local databases with national database | Administration of intra-Community trade | Quality of information contained in the databases | | Germany |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | France |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Italy |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | United Kingdom (Great Britain) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | not evaluated |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Member States | Level of participation by various keepers | | | On-the-spot checks | | | | Farmers | Traders and wholesalers | Slaughterhouses | Checking rate | Selection method | Application of penalties | | Germany - Bavaria |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Germany - Saxony |  |  |  |  |  |  | | France |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Italy |  |  |  |  |  |  | | United Kingdom (Great Britain) |  |  |  |  |  |  | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 41. | The only competence assigned to the Commission by the basic regulation[(38)](#ntr38-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0038) is the assessment of whether the databases are fully operational[(39)](#ntr39-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0039). This recognition allows Member States to abolish the use of passports for movements of cattle on national territory (see paragraph 39). However, Community legislation does not specify the conditions for this recognition by the Commission. This legal void explains why the Commission’s management of this recognition procedure has undergone such profound changes (see paragraphs 55 to 62). |

There is room for improvement in the Commission’s rules concerning on-the-spot checks and penalties

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 42. | The identification and registration legislation lays down a system for on-the-spot checks and a system of specific penalties. The aim of on-the-spot checks is to verify that all components of the system have been put in place and are operating satisfactorily. Community legislation provides for indirect financial penalties for keepers of cattle only in cases of serious omission, when there is provision for the animal to be slaughtered without compensation. In all other cases, the only restrictions imposed are on cattle movement restrictions. These movement restrictions make it impossible to buy or sell the animals, which can have a very disruptive impact on the economic activity of the farm concerned. The penalties under Community legislation are applied in different ways in the four Member States visited. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 43. | The findings made in the four Member States visited demonstrate that the system of on-the-spot checks and the penalty mechanism were working with varying degrees of effectiveness at the time of the audit. Box 2 shows some examples of unsatisfactory application.  In Italy, veterinary officials carried out identification checks at the same time as health checks. In the course of these checks welfare aspects took priority over the technical and administrative aspects of identification. No information relating specifically to the identification checks was included in the control reports. Because of the small number of infringements found, the number of penalties was also very limited.In Germany there was no procedure for following up anomalies. The control reports were not sufficiently detailed.In Great Britain the inspectors did not use the lists of movement anomalies to target their checks.In France inspections carried out in slaughterhouses and assembly centres did not lead to the drawing-up of an ‘identification’ control report. Compared to the number of anomalies discovered, the number of penalties was rather small. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 44. | The control system, comprising risk analysis, the penalty mechanism and the control statistics, was very appropriate to checks on farmers before the national databases were set up. However, it does not focus adequately on the control requirements in respect of other keepers, i.e. traders, markets, assembly centres and slaughterhouses (see box 3).  The classic on-the-spot check system aims to check the animals present on the holding, verify their identity and check that the register is kept properly and that the passports are in conformity with the regulations. This check also aims to verify the movements of the previous 12 months. This system was appropriate for cattle farmers. Where ‘identification’ checks had to carried out in a slaughterhouse, on a trader's premises or in an assembly centre, the usual control arrangements were difficult to apply in view of the number of animals and the large volume of movements recorded by these various keepers. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 45. | Furthermore, this control system has not been adapted to take into account the information available following the introduction of the databases and the opportunities for carrying out a more effective on-the-spot check using lists of anomalies detected by the database, such as double entries, delays in reporting, retagging rates, etc. Lastly, the content of on-the-spot checks has not been defined. In Italy, the rate of on-the-spot checks exceeds 20 % because compulsory preventive health checks are systematically entered together with the identification checks. These checks do not deal systematically with all the technical and administrative aspects of identification. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 46. | The Community legislation allows on-the-spot checks under the identification and registration system to be carried out in combination with other inspections and, with IACS inspections in particular. From the farmers’ point of view the two regulations are very similar. The existence of two specific regulations containing a number of differences gives rise to problems of interpretation and logistical problems in the field (see box 4).  Farmers did not necessarily make a distinction between identification checks and ‘premium’ checks. For example, checks on reporting deadlines and stocks of ear tags were carried out during identification checks, but these elements were not checked in the context of IACS checks.Identification anomalies were not systematically included in reports drawn up in the context of ‘premiums’ audits although they were included in the case of identification checks. |

FINDINGS CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

Absence of precise rules on the management of national databases

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 47. | As there are no rules on how the databases are to be managed, the databases are very different from one Member State to another. No provision was made for any guidance by the Commission when the databases were set up in the Member States. Each Member State developed its own database and bore a large part of the design and development costs[(40)](#ntr40-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0040) (the United Kingdom developed two independent systems; see paragraph 62). The databases were not developed according to a common operating system laid down at European level and the procedures for processing the data were not harmonised. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 48. | To be more precise, the situation is characterised by an absence of definitions of the basic concepts, absence of standardised management rules, absence of quality indicators and the lack of a defined format for the exchange of data. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 49. | The basic concepts include, for example, the minimum information to be provided by keepers when reporting movements and a full specification of what constitutes a keeper of bovine animals. In some cases the intermediate keepers make no report, with the result that the audit trail for the animals concerned is incomplete. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 50. | The absence of standardised management rules means that plausibility tests differ from one database to another and that the circumstances covered by the movement anomalies are not identical. As a result the reliability of the information contained in the databases is very variable. Box 5 illustrates the disparities in the situations encountered in the Member States in 2002.  In order to check the information contained in the databases the Member States have defined the anomalies that are to be detected automatically by the system. With regard to the types of movement anomaly specified by the four Member States visited, Italy has five, while Germany has 55, Great Britain eight and France 35.Examples of movement anomalies are: off-farm movements which were not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer, trader, slaughterhouse, etc), an exit date from the holding after the entry date for the subsequent holding, discrepancies between the exit date recorded by one keeper and the entry date recorded by the next. This last example may be an indication of failure to record an intermediate movement and hence loss of audit trail during a movement.The administrative rules concerning one and the same type of anomaly varied greatly from one Member State to another. For example, when an animal declared for ‘exit’ by one keeper was not declared as an ‘entry’ by another keeper, the German system automatically generated an anomaly if the difference was two days, the French system generated an anomaly for a difference of 30 days, while the Italian and British systems made no provision for this anomaly. In the case of these two databases, therefore, there was no automatic system for following up ‘lost’ animals.On 1 January 2002, the Italian database contained 2 305 076‘lost’ animals. These were animals that had been reported as live ‘exits’ by one keeper but were not registered as ‘entries’ by another keeper. The causes of this situation were either absence of notification and notification errors, or recording errors and miscellaneous computer errors. In Great Britain, the same type of situation had led the authorities to set up a ‘long dead programme’ which made it possible to eliminate anomalies relating to animals which must be considered dead.Where an animal was registered with two keepers at the same time, the German and British systems generated an anomaly on the first day of the overlap. The French system generated an anomaly if the overlap lasted 15 days and the Italian system made no provision for this anomaly. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 51. | The Member States had developed few quality indicators for the national databases. No appropriate anomaly threshold had been set. In addition, management charts were either non-existent or under development. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 52. | The absence of a defined compatible format for exchanging data between national databases prevents complete traceability in respect of cattle moving from one Member State to another. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 53. | Compliance with reporting deadlines is vital to efficient tracing in real time. The Member States are not obliged to analyse these data, or to forward them to the Commission. Analysis of the information sent to the Court revealed substantial disparities in reporting times between types of movements and between Member States (see diagram 4).  Image |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 54. | When the databases were set up, the Commission did not provide assistance and did not give any advice to those Member States that requested it. For example, Great Britain asked the Commission for assistance during the design phase of its system, but it was refused. |

Absence of criteria for recognition of the fully operational character of databases

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 55. | The Commission issues an opinion[(41)](#ntr41-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0041) on the fully operational character of the national databases before a Member State abolishes passports for movements of cattle on its national territory (see paragraph 26). The Commission bases this recognition that the databases are fully operational on an analysis of Member States’ replies to a questionnaire and a two-day on-the-spot visit to the Member States making the request. The object of this visit is a presentation of the database in operation. The Commission then publishes its decision recognising the national database to be fully operational. Box 6 contains some examples of conditions found in Commission decisions recognising the operational character of databases.  The Commission has very often laid down conditions with which the Member State must comply, to ensure that its database is entirely reliable. When the Luxembourg database was recognised as fully operational, the Commission brought to light, among other things, two weaknesses, namely that the competent authority was unable to correct errors or omissions rapidly and that the time allowed for reporting movements, births and deaths was more than seven days.In the case of Denmark, the Commission drew attention to the same two weaknesses. In addition, passports were not authenticated and there was no reporting of premium status.In Belgium, not all types of movement were recorded in the database and the competent authority was unable to correct errors or omissions rapidly.In the Netherlands, the competent authority was unable to correct errors or omissions rapidly, the time allowed for reporting movements, births and deaths was more than seven days and the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2630/97 were not applied correctly.In Austria, not all animal movements were registered, there were delays in corrections of errors and national legislation on deadlines for reporting movements was not complied with.In Sweden, neither slaughterings nor movements to knackers' yards were reported. There were delays in correcting errors and not all provisions concerning new identification of cattle in case of loss of ear tags were complied with. The deadlines for reporting movements were not complied with.In Northern Ireland, the authorities were advised to take the necessary measures to improve the reliability of data recording, to improve procedures relating to the replacement of ear tags, especially the deadlines for distribution and traceability. They were also to improve the procedures for authentification and validation of passports.In France, the authorities were recommended to reduce the time allowed for reporting movements, births and deaths to seven days, to record all animal movements and to correct rapidly any error or omission discovered during on-the-spot checks. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 56. | The conditions entered in the Commission’s decisions recognising the fully operational character of the databases and the findings of the Food and Veterinary Office and the Directorate-General for Agriculture concerning cattle identification and registration did not guarantee that the system in place allowed the conditions required by the legislation to be verified, in respect of reporting deadlines, the absence of reports, or penalties. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 57. | The sole purpose of the decision to recognise the fully operational character of a database was to confirm that the database was fully operational in the technical sense. According to the Commission, this recognition is limited to approving the design of the system set up by a Member State. Furthermore, the Commission has not applied precise management rules or predefined quality indicators as to the basis for its evaluation of the actual operation of the databases. The practical operation and ultimate reliability of the database thus depend on the keepers who are to input complete data and update the base rapidly. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 58. | In addition, all decisions recognising databases to be fully operational contain conditions with suspensive effect linked to a formal commitment by the Member States concerned to make a certain number of improvements to the operation of the databases before the date on which formal recognition comes into effect. Since 2001, the Commission has undertaken to monitor, systematically, whether the recommendations issued have actually been implemented. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 59. | Since 2001, the Food and Veterinary Office has carried out various audit missions concerning traceability, and the findings are taken into account in the evaluation of the design and functioning of the databases. Although this approach has been adopted, it was not applied at the time of the first evaluations of the operational character of the databases. These in-depth checks are now used as a basis for evaluating whether the databases are operational. For this reason the Commission is attaching greater importance to the database recognition procedure and to the role it can play in this field. |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 60. | At the beginning of 2004, the databases of nine Member States and that of Northern Ireland had been recognised by the Commission, on the dates shown in table 5.  Table 5  Dates of Commission decisions recognising the fully operational character of databases   |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Member State (or region) | Decision | Date of decision | Actual date of recognition | | Finland | 1999/317/EC | 28 April 1999 | 1 May 1999 | | Luxembourg | 1999/375/EC | 19 May 1999 | 1 August 1999 | | Denmark | 1999/376/EC | 19 May 1999 | 1 October 1999 | | Belgium | 1999/377/EC | 19 May 1999 | 1 July 1999 | | Netherlands | 1999/546/EC | 13 July 1999 | 1 October 1999 | | Austria | 1999/571/EC | 28 July 1999 | 1 October 1999 | | Sweden | 1999/693/EC | 5 October 1999 | 1 November 1999 | | United Kingdom  (Northern Ireland) | 1999/696/EC | 11 October 1999 | 1 November 1999 | | France | 2001/399/EC | 7 May 2001 | 2 September 2001 | | Germany | 2002/67/EC | 28 January 2002 | Not specified | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 61. | The databases of six Member States had still not been recognised at the beginning of 2004. These were Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom (Great Britain). The situation is set out in detail in box 7.  In the case of Portugal, the Commission has suspended the draft recognition decision as from the date of their visit on 19 October 2000, because of the weaknesses found during the visit by DG SANCO inspectors.The Spanish authorities returned the Commission’s questionnaire on 24 July 2001. They claimed they were ready for the Commission's visit in connection with the official recognition of their database, but asked that the date on which recognition took effect should be the date on which the questionnaire was sent to the Commission. Since 2002, the rate of on-the-spot checks has been reduced to 5 %.The Commission visited Great Britain on 20 and 21 November 2001. A draft decision was drawn up proposing 1 April 2002 as the date on which the decision should come into effect, but here, too, the Commission has suspended the decision because of weaknesses found during an inspection.In a letter of 23 January 2002, the Irish authorities simply informed the Commission that their database was fully operational and for this reason they were reducing the rate of on-the-spot checks from 10 to 5 %.As far as Italy is concerned, the Commission received the completed standard questionnaire on 28 February 2002. The Italian authorities said that they were ready to receive the Commission's visit for official recognition of their database.In a letter of 24 July 2001, the Greek authorities informed the Commission about their plans for setting up the database, which was scheduled to become operational in June 2002. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 62. | For some Member States (Portugal and United Kingdom), the draft recognition decision has been suspended by the Commission. These delays in the decision process are prejudicial to the Member States concerned. Moreover, two Member States (Spain and Ireland) granted themselves the benefits of recognition in the absence of any formal decision on the part of the Commission by reducing their rates of checks from 10 to 5 %. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 63. | The United Kingdom set up two separate databases, i.e. one in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland[(42)](#ntr42-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0042). The two bases are incompatible, as evidenced by the failure of the work of cross-checking animal movements in the two databases. The work was carried out by the competent authority at the Court’s request. The data available do not provide an audit trail for animals traded between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In addition, vets were using a different database and this was not in line with the objectives of the legislation[(43)](#ntr43-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0043). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 64. | The Commission recognised the database for Northern Ireland as fully operational as from 1 November 1999. The setting-up of two separate databases in the United Kingdom and the individual recognition of one of them by the Commission is not in conformity with Community legislation. The incompatibility of the two databases means that they cannot be treated as a single database for operational purposes. |

Supervision by the Commission

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 65. | Until 1999 responsibility for identification and registration lay with DG Agriculture. Since then, the responsibility has been transferred to the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection[(44)](#ntr44-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0044). Nevertheless, it is DG Agriculture (IACS) which is responsible for control and payment of animal premiums. Since 1999 it has only been possible for animal premiums for cattle to be paid if the cattle in question have been correctly identified and registered in the Community system[(45)](#ntr45-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0045). These two Directorates-General are therefore required to supervise the Community identification and registration system. The IACS legislation, like the legislation on the identification system, allows Member States to reduce the minimum rate of on-the-spot checks from 10 to 5 % when the national database is fully operational and has allowed effective cross-checks to be carried out within the IACS framework for more than one year[(46)](#ntr46-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0046). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 66. | Health and Consumer Protection DG is in charge of the procedure for recognising the fully operational character of the national databases (see paragraphs 55 to 62) and is also responsible for monitoring the statistics of on-the-spot identification and registration checks which Member States are required to draw up (see paragraph 46). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 67. | The Food and Veterinary Office is part of Health and Consumer Protection DG and is responsible for routine monitoring of the identification and registration system. At the beginning of 2002 the Food and Veterinary Office began a series of audit visits to the Member States to evaluate the conduct of the checks on the traceability of beef and beef products. In the course of these visits the entire chain is analysed, from fattening to point of sale. The reports containing the observations and recommendations are subject to contradictory procedures between the Office and the Member States, and the final report is published on the Commission’s Internet site. The Food and Veterinary Office visits the 15 Member States over a period of 12 months in connection with this work. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 68. | DG Agriculture is involved at Member State level as part of the clearance of accounts procedure. In this context, it evaluates the reliability of the information in the cattle database, together with the procedures for exchanging information between national audit units following the on-the-spot checks carried out in the identification and registration context. The findings of DG Agriculture during its ‘clearance of accounts’ visits may reveal problems affecting cross-checks of data taken from premium applications and data from the identification and registration database, delays in reporting movements, unsatisfactory keeping of herd books and shortcomings in the system for validating passports. Negligence in the organisation of identification checks may also be detected, such as an absence of checks on keepers other than those applying for premiums or failure to communicate the results of checks between the departments responsible for managing premiums and those in charge of identification. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 69. | Coordination of the work of the various Commission departments involved in the Member States has improved with time. However, as there are no quantified quality indicators that are used by all those involved, they have no means of assessing whether the national databases are acceptable or not. |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 70. | With the exception of the weaknesses discussed in paragraphs 44 and 92, the statistics drawn up by Member States on on-the-spot checks on identification and registration are not analysed or used as a tool for guidance by the Commission (see table 6).  Table 6  Results of on-the-spot checks carried out for the financial year 2000 within the framework of the cattle identification and registration system   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Description | BE | DK | DE | EL | ES | FR | IE | IT | LU | NL | AT | PT | FI | SE | UK | | | GB | Northern Ireland | | Total holdings registered | 50 666 | 35 667 | 249 966 |  | 211 490 | 334 008 | 138 263 | 234 257 | 1 882 | - | 105 943 | 93 684 | 31 540 | 35 671 | 108 658 | 31 533 | | Total holdings inspected | 9 595 | 2 097 | 19 181 |  | 18 960 | 22 854 | 26 997 | 61 465 | 276 | 3 068 | 12 647 | 7 649 | 1 594 | 3 409 | 7 500 | 1 138 | | % | 19 % | 6 % | 8 % |  | 9 % | 7 % | 20 % | 26 % | 15 % | - | 12 % | 8 % | 5 % | 10 % | 7 % | 4 % | | Total bovine animals registered at the beginning of the period | 3 010 799 | 1 977 581 | 11 139 070 |  | 6 833 668 | 21 000 000 | 7 569 735 | - | 201 859 | - | 2 154 667 | 1 202 200 | 1 065 932 | 1 732 839 | 6 896 759 | 1 664 169 | | Total bovine animals checked | 757 990 | 179 238 | 1 178 221 |  | 783 925 | 1 587 594 | 996 917 | 1 928 147 | 46 402 | 337 480 | 480 377 | 110 699 | 80 897 | 233 251 | 608 202 | 29 083 | | % | 25 % | 9 % | 11 % |  | 11 % | 8 % | 13 % | - | 23 % | - | 22 % | 9 % | 8 % | 13 % | 9 % | 2 % | | Number of cases of non-compliance found | 530 | 9 583 | 10 800 |  | 28 088 | 292 370 | 2 183 | 8 737 | 130 | - | - | 16 229 | 2 121 | 14 124 | 51 314 | 3 390 | | Penalties imposed | 220 | 37 | - |  | 331 | 393 | - | 873 | 10 | - |  | 677 | 9 | 90 | 34 683 | - | | % | 42 % | 0 % | - |  | 1 % | 0 % |  | 10 % | 8 % | - |  | 4 % | 0 % | 1 % | 68 % | - | | Number of animals destroyed | 7 | - | - |  | - | 93 | - | - | 4 | - | - | 59 | - | - | 48 | - | | % (of number of animals checked) | 0,001 % | - | - |  | - | 0,006 % | - | - | 0,009 % | - | - | 0,053 % | - | - | 0,008 % | - | | Note 1: The reference period is not the same for all Member States.  Note 2: The data concerning ‘penalties imposed’ do not allow comparison of Member States, as the information forwarded has not been standardised; some Member States provide the number of penalties imposed (BE, IT), others the number of holdings and animals to which penalties are applied (FR, LU, PT, FI, UK-GB), or merely the number of holdings penalised (DK), or the number of cattle subject to penalties (SE); one Member State gives the number of cases subject to legal proceedings (ES).  Note 3: Greece has not yet implemented the Integrated Administration and Control System. No statistics are available.  Source: the Annual Reports required by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2630/97. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 71. | Penalties are laid down in the two sets of regulations concerning the identification and registration system. The legislation on that system, like other veterinary provisions, does not lay down any financial penalties in the case of non-compliance with the rules in force. In contrast, the legislation setting up IACS does lay down financial penalties for non-compliance with the rules. The work of DG Agriculture may thus result in financial corrections[(47)](#ntr47-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0047) in cases where serious anomalies relating specifically to identification are found during audits. The penalty arrangements differ and no links have been provided between the two systems. |

Inconsistencies in the management of premiums

Bovine premiums subject to controls in the context of the Integrated Administration and Control System

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 72. | The legislation on the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) stipulates that Member States are to carry out administrative checks to verify that the conditions of eligibility for the granting of aid and premiums are fulfilled. These administrative checks include, in particular, cross-checks with the cattle database. IACS thus uses the computerised cattle database (the core element of the identification and registration system) to validate applications for premiums[(48)](#ntr48-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0048). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 73. | The Commission ensures that all the Member States put administrative checks in place. These must include checking all the eligibility conditions against the identification and registration database. The standard of checks on eligibility conditions varied greatly in the four Member States visited. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 74. | The Commission has provided a precise definition of the administrative checks to be carried out in the context of bovine premiums by breaking the checks down into key checks and auxiliary checks. It has not specified which anomalies found in respect of identification are to be taken into account and has not said whether these anomalies should lead to payments being frozen or not. Box 8 below shows examples of movement anomalies.  Examples of movement anomalies: an off-farm movement which is not followed by any entry record by another keeper (farmer, trader, slaughterhouse, etc.), a date of exit after the date of entry at the next farm, gaps between the date of exit recorded by one keeper and the date of entry recorded by the next keeper (possibility that an intermediate movement has not been recorded, with resultant loss of audit trail). |

Exceptional support measures for the beef market following the BSE crisis

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 75. | During the BSE crisis in 1996 the Commission introduced a regulation which was applicable exclusively in the United Kingdom[(49)](#ntr49-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0049) and provided for the slaughter and destruction of cattle over 30 months old. During the second crisis, in 2000, the Commission adopted new measures, which applied to the other Member States. In this new regulation, the Commission stipulated that in order to be eligible for the payments granted for slaughter and destruction of cattle, animals must be identified and registered in conformity with the identification and registration regulation[(50)](#ntr50-C_2005029EN.01000101-E0050). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 76. | The regulation applicable to the United Kingdom was not amended to incorporate this condition. This meant that the animals did not have to be identified and registered in accordance with the appropriate legislation in order to be eligible for payments granted in case of slaughter and destruction of cattle. This difference in treatment between the Member States is an inconsistency in the legislation. The Community cattle registration and identification system was, in fact, set up in the EU in response to the BSE crisis. The United Kingdom, the Member State mainly affected by the disease, was the only one not legally obliged to carry out cross-checks with the national database, and benefited from payments for animals which were not identified and were slaughtered in order to be destroyed. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 77. | The Commission’s justification for the difference in treatment was the objective of the 1996 regulation, which aimed to withdraw older cattle from the market that were not subject to the identification obligations and whose age could be determined by examination of the teeth. This argument, which is now no longer relevant, was justified inasmuch as imposing identification requirements for older animals might have increased the risk of illicit slaughter. |

FINDINGS OF THE COURT’S AUDITS IN THE MEMBER STATES VISITED

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 78. | The situation encountered in the four Member States visited during the first half of 2002, i.e. more than 24 months after the deadline of 31 December 1999 for setting up an efficient system of identification and registration, revealed shortcomings. Some Member States were still in the process of developing their own systems at the time of the audit and improvements were planned in all Member States visited. Although, in the meantime, a number of the Court’s findings have become irrelevant, other weaknesses identified at a certain point are the subject of recommendations (see paragraphs 92 to 99) and must still be corrected. Table 4 illustrates the situation observed in 2002 for the four Member States visited, in five areas, namely ear tags, farm registers, passports, computerised databases and the level of participation in the system on the part of the various keepers. |

Ear tags

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 79. | The legislation stipulates that the quantities of ear tags distributed to farmers are to cover requirements for a maximum period of one year. In the Member States visited, the ear tags were not always restricted to these quantities. Generally, the format of the ear tags corresponds to the legislative requirements (see photograph 1). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 80. | In Germany, France and Italy, the national authorities did not use indicators such as rates of loss of ear tags or frequency of retagging to evaluate the quality of the ear tags. Likewise, they did not examine the procedures for awarding contracts. In contrast, in Great Britain, where ear tags made by 12 different producers were approved, statistical data are available (ear tag allocation system) and show that 10,8 % of all ear tags had been replaced after four years. This replacement rate varied greatly depending on suppliers and was sometimes even as much as 23 %. |

Farm registers

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 81. | The farm registers were not always in the format required by the legislation. In all the Member States visited, the register used by slaughterhouses, wholesalers and traders did not include all the information required by the legislation (see box 9).  In France, the competent authority did not approve a specific register for all categories of keeper, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. The format of the register approved for fattening holdings made no provision for continuous recording of herd movements and did not make it possible to see, directly, the number of cattle present on the farm.In Italy, two different models of herd register were in existence. Neither of the models made provision for continuous registration of animal movements. There was no approved register for slaughterhouses.In Great Britain, traders, managers of markets and slaughterhouses did not always keep registers in the format approved by the competent authority. |

Passports

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 82. | Passport formats varied considerably from one Member State to another, as every Member State has developed its own system. The passports were not comparable, one to another, and it was difficult for a farmer from another Member State to decipher the logic of the presentation in the various passports (see photograph 2). Monitoring of passports of animals traded between Member States was inadequate in the Member States visited (see box 10).  In Italy, there was no guarantee that the passports were reliable. In some regions different passport models were in existence simultaneously, with handwritten passports continuing to circulate alongside printed passports. In some cases passports of calves, imported from third countries and identified on the farm of importation, contained no indication of their place of consignment. The Italian authorities elected not to issue new passports for animals from other Member States, but the information contained in the bar codes of the passports of traded animals was not systematically used, because the bar codes had not been standardised. Passports of slaughtered animals were not systematically returned to the competent authority. Some slaughterhouses sent the passports to the headquarters of the national database, others sent them to local units and some kept them for several years. There were no cross-checks between the passports of slaughtered animals and the slaughter information forwarded by slaughterhouses to the databases.In Bavaria and Saxony there was no procedure for following up the return of passports after cattle had been slaughtered. Passports were not systematically returned to the Regionalstelle of the Land. In addition, slaughterhouses did not complete the passports of all cattle slaughtered. Where passports were reissued, there was no procedure for checking the justification for them.In France, the authorities issue new passports for animals coming from other Member States. The passports of traded animals from another Member State were not returned to the Member State of origin. These passports were stored either at the Ministry of Agriculture or by local authorities to await their possible return to the Member State of origin. There were no procedures for recording these passports and no system for annulling them. |

Computerised databases and quality of data

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 83. | The legislation specifies that keepers are to enter in the database all movements to and from the holding, but does not specify the type of information to be communicated. For this reason, the information in the movement reports was not always complete. For example, the French authorities received very limited information on the destination of cattle. The keepers only had to indicate, as the reason for exit, either ‘slaughter’ or ‘fattening’ with no information on the actual destination of the animal (French market or other countries). As a consequence, the database provided no information on intra-Community or extra-Community movements of animals. In Italy assembly centres did not automatically report movements. In addition, considerable delays were noted in the processing of the reports. In 2000 and 2001, for more than 95 % of reports of all types, the time taken to record them in the database was in excess of the time allowed by the legislation. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 84. | The mechanisms for detecting anomalies in movements and the administration of the anomalies differed quite significantly in the Member States visited (see box 11).  In Germany a series of 600 a priori tests of control was implemented to ensure optimum quality of the data entered in the base. Further a posteriori tests were also carried out. In addition, the German authorities developed a quality indicator for the data in the base. This indicator gave the percentage of animals with anomalies in relation to total movements.In Italy, of the entry reports made in 2001, 515 967 reports did not state the origin of the movement (21 % of the total). On 1 January 2002, 2 305 076 exits of animals had been reported with no indication of their destination. In March 2002 the national database contained 743 079 duplicate ear tag marks.Delays in reporting movements were noted in Great Britain. Some exit reports were not followed by entry reports, which meant that the animals concerned were ‘lost’. In addition, some anomalies had been corrected by means of an automatic procedure which generated the missing movement (1 915 000‘corrective’ movements counted in April 2002).In France assembly centres and traders were not obliged to report movements unless the animals remained with them for more than 30 days. As for the slaughterhouses, they were not obliged to report movements. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 85. | In France and Italy the local bases were not synchronised with the national databases. In France, the national base was supplied with data from 43 local bases. For 75 % of the farms visited, quantitative and qualitative differences were found between the data available in the national base and the data in the local base. In Italy some of the 198 local databases had no direct access to the national database. In addition, the slaughterhouses were not connected to the national database. Differences between the data from the various databases were found for all the farms visited. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 86. | The quality of the information contained in the databases was considered adequate in Germany but inadequate in the three other Member States. Few quality indicators had been developed for the data contained in the base and external sources were not used to validate the quality of the data. |

Reports by the various keepers

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 87. | With regard to reports, the level of participation by the various keepers was considered to be satisfactory in the case of the farmers. Nevertheless, traceability is not complete if all keepers, even temporary ones such as traders, wholesalers and managers of assembly centres, do not report entries and exits. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 88. | In France, slaughterhouses were not an integral part of the system. The slaughterhouses constitute the link between the identification as such and the labelling of beef. For this reason they are a crucial link in achieving complete traceability. |

Information on cattle flows

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 89. | The database of France, which is responsible for more than 50 % of intra-Community exports, provided no information on movements involving the other Member States. In the case of the latter, the information from the computerised databases relating to intra-Community movements shows substantial divergence between the exits declared by the Member State of consignment and the entries declared by the Member State of destination (see table 7). Box 12 gives some examples of the anomalies and inconsistencies found between national databases.  Table 7  Cross-checks between national databases in respect of intra-Community movements  MOVEMENTS FOR 2000   |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Movement from | Destination | Germany | France | Italy | United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | | Germany | Database of country of destination |  | n.a. | 18 255 | 52 | | Germany's national database |  | 51 432 | 79 691 | 23 | | Difference |  | n.a. | 61 436 | 29 | | France | Database of country of destination | 16 642 |  | 401 894 | 202 | | France's national database | n.a. |  | n.a. | n.a. | | Difference | n.a. |  | n.a. | n.a. | | Italy | Database of country of destination | 1 126 | n.a. |  | 5 | | Italy's national database | 0 | 174 |  | 160 | | Difference | 1 126 | n.a. |  | 155 | | United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | Database of country of destination | 0 | n.a. | 160 |  | | United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | 0 | 0 | 0 |  | | Difference | 0 | n.a. | 160 |  | | n.a.: data not available  Source: national databases. | | | | | |     MOVEMENTS FOR 2001   |  |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Movement from | Destination | Germany | France | Italy | United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | | Germany | Database of country of destination |  | n.a. | 22 687 | 1 122 | | Germany's national database |  | 62 809 | 114 820 | 163 | | Difference |  | n.a. | 92 133 | 959 | | France | Database of country of destination | 8 847 |  | 367 769 | 159 | | France's national database | n.a. |  | n.a. | n.a. | | Difference | n.a. |  | n.a. | n.a. | | Italy | Database of country of destination | 73 | n.a. |  | 37 | | Italy's national database | 0 | 353 |  | 0 | | Difference | 73 | n.a. |  | 37 | | United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | Database of country of destination | 0 | n.a. | 82 |  | | United Kingdom databases (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) | 0 | 0 | 0 |  | | Difference | 0 | n.a. | 82 |  | | n.a.: data not available  Source: national databases. | | | | | |   The Italian database only reported 22 687 animals from Germany for 2001, whereas the German database recorded 114 820 exited to Italy. For 2000, the data are 18 255 and 79 691 respectively. In addition, the Italian database did not report a single exit towards Germany, whereas entries from Italy were recorded in the German database (1 126 animals in 2000 and 73 animals in 2001).The German database recorded exits of only 23 animals to the United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases showed 52. In 2001, the German database recorded 163 animals exiting for the United Kingdom, while the United Kingdom databases recorded 1 122.While the United Kingdom databases reported no exits in 2000 or 2001, the Italian database included 160 entries of cattle in 2000 and 82 cattle in 2001, although these movements were actually forbidden.There were other inconsistencies in respect of exits from Italy for the United Kingdom. 160 animals were declared as exiting Italy for the United Kingdom in 2000, whereas the United Kingdom databases only mention 5. For 2001 the situation is reversed, as the Italian database contained no exit to the United Kingdom, whereas 37 entries were recorded there. |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 90. | Trade with third countries in 2000 and 2001 also showed substantial differences (see table 8) between Eurostat data and the data in the national databases. According to the inquiries carried out by the Court, there is no consistency between the data from the two data sources. It was not possible to obtain a true view of the movements of animals between the Member States and third countries.  Table 8  Comparison of data on imports from third countries  IMPORTS FOR 2000   |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |  | Germany | France | Italy | United Kingdom | | According to Eurostat | 118 780 | 25 | 330 632 | 432 | | According to the national databases | 33 583 | n.a. | 170 184 | 1 127 | | Difference | 85 197 | n.a. | 160 448 | - 695 | | % | 254 | n.a. | 94 | -62 | | n.a.: data not available  Source: Eurostat and national databases. | | | | |     IMPORTS FOR 2001   |  |  |  |  |  | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | |  | Germany | France | Italy | United Kingdom | | According to Eurostat | 74 730 | 8 | 310 739 | 49 | | According to the national databases | 21 637 | n.a. | 128 515 | 65 | | Difference | 53 093 | n.a. | 182 224 | -16 | | % | 245 | n.a. | 142 | -25 | | n.a.: data not available  Source: Eurostat and national databases. | | | | | |

On-the-spot checks

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 91. | The on-the-spot checks carried out by the Member States (see table 6) were evaluated as follows. In Germany, the on-the-spot checks were organised at Länder level. In Bavaria, the minimum checking rate of 10 % was not respected, the method of selecting the beneficiaries to be audited was not based on an annual risk analysis, the legal penalties were not applied and the results of on-the-spot checks were not systematically forwarded to the premium administrators. France and Great Britain did not comply with the minimum rate of 10 % for on-the-spot checks. In Italy, the quality of the checks, the recording of the results of those checks, the application of penalties and the forwarding of the results to the premium managers all raised doubts about the reliability of the on-the-spot checks. |

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 92. | Considering that the objective of the legislation on cattle identification and registration is to ensure the traceability of all cattle movements on the territory of the European Union, the regulatory framework put in place has some conceptual shortcomings (paragraphs 33 to 46). For example, Community legislation makes no provision for procedures to monitor movements of cattle between Member States, although between 3 and 4 % of cattle change Member State every year.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | The legislative framework should make provision for systematic exchanges of information between databases in the Member States so that intra-Community movements of cattle can be traced in accordance with the requirements of the Community legislation (paragraphs 35 to 37). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 93. | The current legislation has inconsistencies and imprecisions, which give rise to differences in treatment among Member States (paragraph 38). In addition, the existence of options in the application of the legislation complicates the system (paragraph 39).   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | All keepers of cattle should be included in the identification and registration system (see paragraph 32). The reports should be subject to precise rules which are identical in all Member States. The keeping of registers should be adapted to the activities of the various keepers and take into account technological developments (machine-readable bar codes, Internet, etc.). Procedures for checking and returning passports to the issuing body should be implemented. In addition, identification numbers should be rendered more compatible (paragraphs 38 and 39). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 94. | The databases developed in the Member States are very heterogeneous, which is a barrier to interconnection of the databases (paragraphs 40 and 41).   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | If the objective is to facilitate reliable interoperability between national databases, the Commission should be authorised to adopt common rules allowing interconnection of the Member States’ databases (paragraphs 40 and 41). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 95. | Every Member State has adopted its own administrative rules for the cattle identification and registration system. Few quality indicators have been developed (paragraphs 86 to 90).   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | The Commission should be empowered to draw up, within the framework of existing or amended procedures, precise criteria for operation of the national databases (common administrative rules, quality indicators, definition of a format for the exchange of data between national databases, etc.) (paragraphs 86 to 90). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 96. | The legislation stipulates, without laying down rules on the procedures, that the Commission is to assess whether the databases are fully operational. The aim of this recognition is to authorise Member States to abolish passports for movements of cattle on the national territory of a Member State and to reduce the rate of checks for animal premiums from 10 to 5 %. This justification reduces the impact of recognition that databases are operational (paragraphs 55 to 64).   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | If the aim is to have databases which are operational, the procedure for recognising databases should be strengthened by redefining the objective and detailing the criteria that must be met, in respect of both design and operation, in order for the Commission to award recognition and renew it periodically (paragraphs 55 to 65). The Commission should therefore take on a guiding role in the system of cattle identification and registration (paragraphs 38 to 40 and 47) and carry out regular checks to ensure that the databases are fully operational (paragraphs 55 to 59, 65 to 69 and paragraph 71) by setting up a coherent procedure for verifying the operation of the system in the Member States, including annual certification of the quality of information in the national databases (paragraphs 37 and 69). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 97. | The on-the-spot checks to be carried out by Member States are not appropriate for all types of keepers of cattle. In the case of farmers, the ‘identification’ checks and the IACS checks have not been systematically integrated. In this way multiple checks ignore potential synergy effects (paragraphs 42 to 46). In the absence of precise harmonised rules for all the Member States (paragraphs 72 to 74), anomalies in identification have different financial consequences in terms of the premiums paid in the various Member States.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | A comparative analysis of the administrative checks in force in the different Member States should result in controls being defined which cover all the conditions governing eligibility for premiums, as well as the cross-checks to be made between the IACS databases and the identification and registration databases before premiums are paid (paragraphs 72 to 74). In addition, the system of on-the-spot checks should be reviewed (including the penalty mechanisms), approaches which are specific to the type of keeper should be laid down and, especially in the case of farmers, an approach which is fully integrated with IACS should be imposed, while purely welfare matters should be covered by veterinary legislation (paragraphs 43 to 46 and paragraph 71). | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 98. | The legislative arrangements in force in the United Kingdom do not require animals to be identified and registered in accordance with the identification and registration regulation in order to be eligible for payments granted in the case of slaughter and destruction of cattle which are over 30 months old.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | The legislation should be amended to guarantee equality of treatment in future between the other Member States and the United Kingdom in the context of the exceptional support measures in connection with BSE (paragraphs 75 to 77). | |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 99. | The Court’s inquiry, carried out in 2002, at the Community authorities and in four Member States showed that the objective of establishing an effective system of cattle identification and registration at the production stage has not been fully attained. There was no comprehensive guarantee of the traceability of all cattle circulating in the EU. As a result, the special Community labelling system has inevitably been constructed around a system which is affected by weaknesses and has served as a vehicle for the losses of traceability that occurred ‘upstream’ (paragraphs 78 to 91). |

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 7 and 8 July 2004.

For the Court of Auditors

Juan Manuel FABRA VALLÉS

President

---

[Top](#document1)