Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 17.04.1998
COM(1998) 207 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

on

the identification and registration of animals

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

### **ON** **THE IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF** **ANIMALS**

##### **A. GENERAL ASPECTS 1 ***

_1_ _Directive_ _92/102/EEC_ 1^

_2_ _Data sources_ 2

_3_ _Transposition of the legislation_ 3

_4_ _Identification of bovine animals_
_5_

##### **B. OVINE/CAPRINE AND PORCINE ANIMALS 7**

_1_ _Identification_ _of Ovine and caprine animals_ _1_

_2_ _Identification of porcine animals_ 10

_3_ _Overall main remarks_ 13

##### **C. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS 16**

_1_ _Needs and possible options_ 16

_2_ _Guidance scheme_ 18

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

#### **IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION** **OF ANIMALS**

_The_ _present report from the Commission to the Council and_ _the_ _European Parliament has_

_been elaborated_ _in_ _the framework of_ _the_ _provisions of Article_ _10_ _of Directive_ _92/102/EEC_ _._

_It aims at stating the experience_ _gained,_ _and drawing conclusions, on identification and_

_registration of_ _animals_ _in the European Union. It focuses on ovine/caprine and porcine_

_animals as the case of_ _bovine_ _has just been dealt with by Council Regulation (EC) No_

_820/97'_ _establishing a system for the_ _identification_ _and_ _registration_ _of bovine animals and_

_regarding the labelling of beef and beef products._

#### **A. GENERAL ASPECTS**

_**1.**_ _**Directive**_ _**92/102/EEC**_

The Council Directive 92/102/EEC on the identification and registration of animals has two

basic objectives:

the localisation and the tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial

importance for the control of contagious diseases;

the management and supervision of livestock premiums as part of the reform of the

agricultural policy.

To deal with these objectives the productive livestock must be adequately identified and

registered according to the same requirements in all Member States.

Directive 92/102/EEC applies^ to bovine, ovine, caprine, and porcine animals and rules

have been laid down:

1 O.J. L 355, 27.11.1992, p. 32
2 O.J. L 117, 21.04.1997, p. 1

The provisions related to the bovine animals are now revoked and replaced by the provisions foreseen by
the new Regulation.

**1 * >**

to keep an up-to-date list of the holdings in each Member State(Arficle 3);

to keep registers of the animals at the level of the holdings, including information for

all births, deaths and movements(Article 4);

to identify, according to several principles and possible derogation, the different types

of animals of a Member State;(Article 5);

to keep track of animals in case of exchange between Member States, and, in

particular, the possibility to replace the eartag or the other identification mark with a

modification of the initial code;(Article 6)

to identify imported animals without losing the trail of previous identification

marks.(Article 8)

Article 10 of Directive 92/102/EEC stipulates that: "Not later than 31 December 1996,

acting on the basis of a report from the Commission, accompanied by any proposals, on

which it will decide by a qualified majority the Council, shall, in the .light of experience

gained, review the provisions of this Directive with a view to defining a harmonised

identification and registration system and shall decide on the possibility of introducing

electronic identification arrangements in the light of progress achieved in this field by the

International Organisation for Standardisation(ISO)".

_2._ _Data_ _sources_

To draft this report Commission, by letters sent to the Member States, asked for relevant

information and state of things on the following:

Identification system of bovine, porcine and ovine animals

Registration of animals on the holding

Central registration of animals

Systems of individual "passports"

Electronic identification

The data collection was concluded by the end of 1996, integrating though relevant

information until recently. However, in some cases the data were incomplete. In particular,

two Member States, Spain and Belgium, have only sent copies of their current legislation

without replying to the Commission's specific questions.

Furthermore, the Commission used the available DG XXIV(veterinary inspection services) [4 ]

reports, where they dealt with this subject, and the reports related to the Integrated

Administration and Control System drawn by the EAGGF [3] . However, as far as EAGGF

reports are concerned, it should be noted that :

in several occasions the data provided by this source were not up to date;

these reports refer only to "premium" animals and, therefore, do not include data

concerning the porcine species, or do not refer to all production categories of bovine

or ovine/caprine animals.

In addition, consultations took place with representatives of farm associations, and a

working group of private experts was established to examine the identification and

registration system of ovine/caprine animals, as well as of porcine animals.

Despite the efforts, some information is missing and the analysis of several aspects has not

been fulfilled as precisely as wished.

_**3.**_ _**Transposition of the legislation**_

Member States had to transpose Directive 92/102/EEC for the whole livestock described in

Annexe I of the present report. The basic livestock population concerns about 85 million

bovines. 110 million ovine/caprine and 115 million porcine animals. Every year, the

Food and Veterinary Office
European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund

identification system has to deal with the replacements of slaughtered animals, that is

about 30 million bovines, 80 million ovine/caprine and 190 million porcine animals.

Thus, the initial work of identification is more or less the same in the three sectors but the

annual work is more important for ôvine/caprine (about 3 times) and for porcine (about 6

times) than for bovine animals.

On the basis of the average number of animals per holding, the main effort has to be

done:

- by Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands for

bovine;

- by United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and Ellas for ovine/caprine;

- by Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany for porcine animals.

Article 11 of Directive 92/102/EEC provide for transposition of the legislation by

October 1993 for bovine animals, by January 1994 for porcine animals and by January

1995 for ovine and caprine animals. As shown in Annexe II, the transposition of the

directives into national law was largely incorrect as far as the deadlines were concerned.

For bovine animals, Member States were generally 2 years late. Only Belgium and the

Netherlands had their transposition done in due time, by the end of 1993. The last

modification has taken place in 1996.

For porcine animals, Belgium had, already in 1990, national legislation on identification.

The three other Member States with the main production, as well as Portugal, have

transposed the Directive into national law by the year of 1994 following the foreseen

deadline. Most of the other Member States were 1 or 2 years late and Finland has not yet

finished its transposition.

For ovine and caprine animals, the deadline of 1995 was respected by Denmark and

Portugal. The transposition was completed the following year, in 1995, by Austria,

Sweden, Luxembourg, Ellas and Germany. The main producers that are the United

Kingdom, Ireland and Spain have transposed the Directive in 1996. France and Finland

have not yet finished this transposition, but planned to do it in 1997.

_**4. Identification**_ _**of**_ _**bovines**_

As regards the identification of bovines, compliance with the Directive 92/102/EEC means

mainly:

 - the competent authority has an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep animals

and that list must specify the species kept and their keepers;

 - eartags must be applied on the animals not later than 30 days after birth. However,

provisional approved marks may be kept up to the age of-six months; and some

calves intended for slaughter before the age of six months may leave the holding of

their birth to be marked at the fattening holding;

 - the eartag should bear an alphanumeric code, which shall not exceed 14 characters, in

order to identify each animal individually along with the holding on- which it was

bom;

 - in the case where a mark has to be replaced, a link should be established between the

new and the old mark;

 - identification within 30 days of all animals imported from third countries,

establishing a link between the identification mark of the third country and the

identification allocated by the Member State of destination; that identification is not

compulsory if the animal is slaughtered within 30 days in the importing Member

State;

- a register has to be kept at the level of the holder, stating the number of animals

present, and an up-to-date record of all births, deaths and movements, at least on the

basis of aggregate movements;

- the keeper of animals to be moved to or from a market, or collection centre, must

provide a document to the operator who is a keeper of animals, setting out, on a

temporary basis, details of the animals, including the identification numbers or marks.

Regarding compliance with Directive 92/102/EEC, nine(9) Member States may be

considered as having completed the minimum level of implementation. The Netherlands is

quite advanced in relation to the Directive 92/102/EEC provisions. Belgium has already

implemented double marking of the animals and their "SANITEL" [6] identification and

registration system is close to the one provided by the new Regulation on the identification

and registration system of the bovine animals.

As far as identification documents are concerned, the majority of the Member States ask

only for accompanying documents. However Sweden has in use movement documents that

are not properly certified by an official veterinarian and not sent to the central authorities.

Denmark uses two certificates ("IBR" and "BVD"). On a higher level of implementation of

the community rules, Ireland and Portugal require identity cards while passports are already

in use in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland a computerised movement record is working.

Ellas, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden show deficiencies of implementation of

Directive 92/102/EEC in relation to either:

- the central register which deals in some cases only with premium animals, or

- the keeping of the register on the holding, or

- the existence of an applied eartag system for all bovine animals.

Therefore, around 20% of the bovine livestock were not complying with the requirements

of Directive 92/102/EEC.

However, as regards to the bovine species, the recently adopted Council Regulation (EC)

No 820/97 already improves the requirements related to the system of identification and

registration.

This Regulation reinforces the provisions of Directive 92/102/EEC as follows:

- an eartag must be applied on each ear; eartags which have become illegible or have

been lost, must be replaced by a new mark, bearing the same code as the original tag;

- a passport should be issued within 14 days of the notification of an animal's birth;

"SANITEL" identification and registration system which is in use in Belgium comprises elements as:

  - oval plastic eartag (country code+holding **number+individual** **number)** approved by the Ministry of
Agriculture ;

  - registration forms which are computerised;

  - holding registration will cover all animals present at the holding.

**a computerised database must become fully operational no later than** **31** **December**

1999;

the up-to-date **holding register shall comprise** data **on births, deaths and all**

movements;

#### B. OVINE/CAPRINE AND PORCINE ANIMALS

_1._ _Identification of Ovines and caprines_

In accordance with the Council Directive 92/102/EEC, by 1.1.95, Member States should

have in place an identification and registration system for ovine/caprine animals that

should comprise:

- an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep more than three animals;

- . a holding register recording at least aggregate movements and the total number of

sheep and goats present each year on a date to be determined by the competent

authority;

- . identification marks (eartag or tattoo), determining at least the holding of origin and

the holding on which the animal was born, applied on animals as soon as possible

and in any case before leaving the holding of birth;

In relation to the registration of movements, Member States had the possibility to apply

their national systems, provided that they have communicated them to the Commission

by 1.7.1994 for eventual approval or amendments. There was no notification of this kind

brought to the attention of the relevant Commission services. Animals bearing a

temporary mark must be accompanied throughout their movement by a document which

enables the origin, ownership, place of departure and destination to be determined.

The implementation of the community rules is more or less completed in nine(9) Member

States. It is mainly deficient in Italy and Portugal where holding registers are not kept on

every holding, and in Ellas, Finland, and France, where, in addition to that, identification

**marks are not placed in all the required cases. In** United Kingdom **the** implementation is

**not extended to** Northern **Ireland.**

Therefore, around 40% of the ovine/caprine livestock are not complying with the

requirements of Directive 92/102/EEC, including the Hellenic and the British livestock

which are among the most numerous within European Union.

_**1.1**_ _**List of holdings**_

Each Member State has a registration system of holdings keeping sheep and goats.

However, for at least half of them it is restricted to holdings with ovine or caprine

animals entitled to the premium grant. In these cases, the lists nearly cover the provisions

of Directive 92/102/EEC, but not its full extent.

Moreover, as it is not legally required, in most cases the lists are not centralised and

computerised and it cannot be insured they are always up to date. Furthermore, the

information given on each holding and the animals kept is very dissimilar between

Member States and sometimes within the same Member State.

Only Denmark already has a central register of all holdings, providing a lot of data which

may be cross checked via other data sources. Important information may be found about

the keeper, the type and use of the animals, the number of animals, the practitioner

veterinarian responsible, the disease status and any imports or exports.

The SACRIMO computer system in United Kingdom includes all the holdings concerned

in the biggest part of its territory but it does not give any movement records of animals.

The SANITEL system of Belgium is under upgrading, it is limited though to holdings

included within the premium scheme. Other centralised databases are foreseen or under

development in most of the other Member States. In some of these cases the present

manual or computerised regional systems should be deeply reconsidered to harmonise

their registers if they should be put together in a national or European framework.

_**1.2**_ _**Register on the holding**_

Holding registers, complying with the provisions foreseen in Council Directive

92/102/EEC have been fully implemented in nine(9) Member States. The registers exist

only for some categories of holdings in France, Italy, Finland, Portugal, Sweden and

United Kingdom. In Finland, Portugal and Sweden they are kept on the holdings

involved in the premium scheme which is not far from all holdings.but do not cover all

ovine and caprine animals. In United Kingdom they are implemented in Great Britain but

not in Northern Ireland. In France and Italy they are poorly implemented, restricted to the

necessity of the Brucellosis eradication programme in the latter case.

As it is not compulsory, in six(6) Member States, the registers are not of the same model

across the entire country which makes impossible some cumulative information. They

just state the situation on a certain day of the year, and aggregate movements, in the cases

of Austria, Germany and Spain. A lot of useful details on individual animals are missing

in registers kept in Austria, Ellas, Ireland, Italy and United Kingdom.

So, the registers provide generally very basic information as far as the disease control is

concerned. Keeping track of individual animals is impossible in most cases.

_**1.3**_ _**Identification marks**_

The application of identification marks on every ovine or caprine animal which leaves its

holding of birth is performed in ten(10) Member States. The provision is not applied in

Finland, where only imported animals bear a mark, in France and in Northern Ireland.

In Belgium mainly the animals eligible to premium support arrangements are subject to

identification marking . In Ellas, only adult animals involved in the Brucellosis

eradication programme and which are leaving the holding are marked.

France, since 1 September 1997, has put in force a new national Decree of 30.05.97 regarding the
identification of ovine animals. However, this Decree is not yet formally notified to Commission.

The identification means chosen by Member States is mainly the eartag. Six of them

apply only that, and only Portugal has not authorised it, prescribing the tattoo. Four

Member States, accept both eartags or tattoos, while Italy places both eartag and tattoo on

the same animal. United Kingdom and Ireland accept also temporary marks as "painting"

mark resulting into a completely unreliable identification providing no data at all on the

origin of the animal.

In all Member States implementing these provisions, the animals are identified only if

they are going to leave the holding. The identification mark scarcely provides all the

useful data as country code, holding number, individual number. Only Italy seems to have

in place an appropriate system.

_2._ _Identification of Porcine animals_

In accordance with the Council Directive 92/102/EEC, by 1.1.94, Member States should

have in place an identification and registration system for porcine animals which should

comprise:

- an up-to-date list of all the holdings which keep more than one pig not intended for

the keeper's own use or consumption;

 - a holding register stating the number of animals present on the holding including data

on movements; special provisions for the case of pure-bred and hybrid pigs which

may be covered by an alternative registration system;

- identification marks (eartag or tattoo) determining at least the holding or origin and

the holding on which the animal was born, applied on animals at least before leaving

the holding of birth;

In relation to the registration of movements, Member States had the possibility to apply

their national systems, provided that they have communicated them to the Commission

by 1.7.1993 for eventual approval or amendments. There was no notification of this kind

brought to the attention of the relevant Commission services. Animals bearing; a

**10**

temporary mark must be accompanied throughout their movement by a document which

enables the origin, ownership, place of departure and destination to be determined.

The implementation of the Community rules is more or less completed in twelve(12)

Member States. Main deficiencies are found in Ellas and in Finland. A little information is

available for Portugal.

Therefore, around only 4% of the porcine livestock is not complying with the requirements

of the 92/102/EEC Directive.

_2.1_ _L ist of_ _h_ _oldings_

Each Member State has a registration system of holdings keeping pigs. However, for at least

one third of them it is restricted either to large holdings or to regional schemes. Moreover,

as it is not legally required, in most cases the lists are not centralised and computerised and

it cannot be insured they are always up to date. Furthermore, the information given on each

holding and the animals kept is very dissimilar between Member States and sometimes

within the same Member State.

Only the Netherlands has already a central computerised register of all holdings, providing

information on the holding number, the holding of origin, the holding of destination and the

eartag number of the animals.

The PRIMO computer system in United Kingdom include all the holdings concerned in

the biggest part of its territory but it does not give any movement records of animals. The

SANITEL system of Belgium is applied but being under upgrading. Centralised databases

are foreseen or under development in most of the other Member States. In some of these

cases the present manual or computerised regional systems should be deeply reconsidered

to harmonise their registers if they should be put together in a national or European

framework.

**11**

_**2.2**_ _**Register on the holding**_

Holding registers complying with the provisions foreseen in Council Directive 92/102/EEC

have been fully implemented in eleven(l 1) Member States. Detailed information on births,

deaths and movements is recorded in The Netherlands and in Austria. Additionally, Austria

provides for a uniform national model of farm registers.

The registers exist only for some categories of holdings in Ellas and in Finland, and they are

not used on a compulsory basis in Portugal.

As it is not compulsory, in three(3) Member States, i.e. Germany, Italy and Sweden, the

registers are not of the same model throughout the whole country which makes some

cumulative data impossible.

Therefore, the registers provide generally very basic data as far as the disease control is

concerned. Keeping track of individual animals is impossible in most cases.

_**2.3**_ _**Identification marks**_

The application of identification marks on every porcine animal which leaves its holding of

birth is performed in twelve(12) Member States. The provision is not applied in Finland,

where only imported animals bear eartags, and in Ellas. For Portugal, the Commission had

no available information.

The identification means chosen by Member States is mainly the eartag, but the choice for a

tattoo is possible in some cases in Denmark and in France. It is only Italy which requires the

tattoo. The Dutch system also provides for the possibility of electronic identification but

information is not available as far as its implementation is concerned.

In most Member States concerned, the animals are identified only in case of leaving the

holding. In Germany an eartag is fitted at the latest at the time of weaning, including data

on the country code and an individual number for each animal. In The Netherlands, animals

are identified before the age of six months or earlier if they are sold or otherwise transferred.

**12**

However, piglets moving to a fattening unit are not always identified, at least in Denmark,

the Netherlands and Sweden. Pigs leaving the holding to be slaughtered are just slap

tattooed in Denmark and in France; and moved without identification marks in Germany

and Sweden.

The identification mark scarcely provides all the useful data as country code, holding

number, individual number.

_3._ _Overall_ _Main Remarks_

The transposition of the European rules was late as far as the deadlines are concerned. In

some cases the implementation procedure is not already completed, especially in Ellas,

Finland and Portugal.

The text of the Directive 92/102/EEC allows for lots of''flexible" interpretations which

were highly used, resulting in several, incompatible, identification and registration

systems.

The situation is now mainly characterised by a lack of harmonisation, a diversity between

Member States and even within the same Member State for most of them, which can not

guarantee proper and adequate means for tracing diseases as it would have been necessary

during the BSE crisis.

The most important points which cause identification problems, from a veterinary point

of view, are described hereafter:

_3.1_ _the list of holdings_

The list of all holdings, specifying the species kept and their keepers, is a provision of

Directive 92/102/EEC which is not applied in all Member States in an efficient way.

**13**

Even in the cases where all **farms are registered, the national list is frequently dispatched at**

regional levels, with different data or different method of assembling **the data. These**

discrepancies make impossible to centralise the information, even at a national level.

In most Member States there is no control concerning the reliability of the information and

the permanent up-dating of the local lists.

As a result of these deficiencies, the information system is responding slowly to any enquiry

and can not ensure neither the presence of the data requested nor their accuracy. It can not

be used to centralise the data and can not provide for any statistical analysis. It is of few, if

any, help for tracing diseases or other veterinary purposes.

In order to improve the system all the national registration lists should be computerised in a

compatible way, at national and EU level. Furthermore, the requirements of Directive

92/102/EEC should be specified and completed to promote the feasibility of the disease

tracing. The data which should be available everywhere should be, as a rninimum:

- obviously the address of the holding and the name of the keeper,

- the registration number of the holding,

- the type of production in order to sort out the farms if needed, and

- the number of animals kept at a certain date.

_3.2 the register of each holding_

Member States have generally tried to cover the current requirements at their minimum

extent. However, farm registers are not kept in all holdings and there is no control

performed on behalf of the competent authority. It is quite common that these registers are

not uniform and vary a lot on their form within a Member State and definitely, as it is not

yet provided for, within the European Union.

To know the number of animals kept each year on a certain date is not sufficient for disease

control matters. The register should at least include complete data on births, deaths and

movements on a daily, or very short term, basis, in order to make possible checking of the

**14**

movements during animal disease crises. In addition, a proper control system, should be

established to ensure reliability.

The information included in movement documents varies a lot among Member States.

Frequently the document can not give a record of all movements performed nor the number

and address of the holding of origin. In the case of a dead animal,' or in the case of a

movement to a slaughter house, the document is often lost as it is not quite clear whose

responsibility is to send it to the competent authority. These documents and their use should

be improved on a European Union basis as they are an important identification element

stating data which are implicit for any disease control research.

_**3.3**_ _**the identification marks**_

The Directive 92/102/EEC does not specify the type of the identification marks to be

used. Therefore, in many cases particularly for sheep and goats the means for identifying

the animals is just a paint marking procedure which does not ensure an appropriate

identification as it can not distinguish among different holdings of birth. In these cases

the origin of the animals remains always difficult to determine.

An other difficulty of the determination of the origin arises from the replacement of

identification eartag. If there is a necessity of replacement, in case of a loss for example, the

new eartag should bear identical data to the previous one.

The possibility for an alphanumeric code was not interpreted in the same way in all

Member States. At the EU level, it results to a system of data which are not perceptible

all over EU, and research on the origin of animals becomes complicated, and unreliable.

The necessity to identify animals '* as soon as possible" was always interpreted by

Member states to the extreme meaning that animals should be marked only before

leaving the holding of origin, or even only before leaving a holding for slaughter. That

system might work, if reliable, for meat traceability purposes but not for disease

traceability or other veterinary purposes.

**15**

#### **C. Possible improvements**

_**I.**_ _**Needs and possible options**_

The need for an effective identification network is not dictated solely by management or

control considerations. It is indispensable in the event of an epizootic and not having one

can prove very costly or result in major crises when there is a threat to public health.

Despite the efforts deployed in all the Member States, however, the situation generally is

not satisfactory. The systems already in place are of little or no value from a veterinary

standpoint, either because of their inherent weaknesses or their lack of compatibility at

European or in some cases national level.

Experience has shown how difficult it is to introduce an operational system. On the other

hand there is no point in adopting half-measures or making superficial adjustments or

improvements to systems which in any case cannot provide a traceability function.

In essence, if the objectives of an identification system are to be attained, a choice must

be made among three options:

- strict identification of the livestock, using conventional eartags with individual

numbers indicating in particular the holdings of origin; or

- strict identification of the livestock using electronic identification means; with

individual numbering of the animals, or

- more flexible conventional identification at individual level, but with a tighter

approach to the keeping and centralising of reliable registers of holdings, so that the

current situation and past and present livestock movements can be ascertained at any

moment.

' eartagging(not involving electronic devices) or tattooing

**16**

The first option is not really practicable, given present methods of marking animals. The

second option would depend on progress made in the field of electronic identification.

Commission, with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre, [is launching] a large

scale field trial, called IDEA, to examine the feasibility of using electronic identification for

bovine and ovine/caprine animals.

Fourteen(14) project proposals from seven(7) Member States were presented to the

Commission. These projects were examined within 1996 and following a selection

procedure 10 out of the 14 were pre-selected.

The trial period, which will last three years, will involve the use of transponders which may

be either inserted into the animal or contained in an eartag. It is intended that the selected

projects will start in 1998 and end by 31st December 2000.

This project will make it possible to validate the following in real life situations:

the implantation technique,

the choice and reading of the transponders throughout the animals' lives(with the

respective equipment),

the technique for recovering the transponders,

the organisational structure, and

the information flows between the different levels of responsibility.

Porcine animals do not form part of the objectives of the IDEA project because it was

premium oriented. Some experiments are presently envisaged regarding the use of

electronic identification means for porcine animals.

Commission following Article 4 point 7 of the Council Regulation No 820/97 [9] and

Article 10 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC(see page 2 of this report) shall review the

issue of electronic identification. In case that IDEA will produce positive results in

conformity with Council Regulation No 820/97, Council Directive 92/102/EEC and

"Not later than 31 December 2000 the Council, acting on the basis of a report from the Commission
accompanied by any proposals, shall decide, on the possibility of introducing electronic arrangements in
the light of progress achieved in this field".

**17**

Council Regulation No 3508/92, Commission will submit proposals to the Council to

amend the provisions concerning eartags and to generalise the use of transponders for all

Community livestock.

Until the electronic identification becomes operational the third option should be taken

into consideration as a minimal solution. Reinforcing the current provisions regarding

identification and registration of ovine/caprine and porcine animals would improve

disease traceability and maintain consumers' confidence to meat coming from these

animal species.

_2._ _Guidance scheme_

Commission will propose to adopt electronic identification as soon as the system

becomes fully operational. Meanwhile, Commission recommends a minimum system

which has a certain value in terms of veterinary traceability as well as consumers'

confidence.

In the light of the experience gained, this minimum system should be based on a list of

holdings that is easy to consult, on detailed and up-to-date registers of holdings, and on a

method of marking animals that although limited to the most essential cases is

nevertheless reliable.

The common identification scheme for sheep and goats and the identification scheme for

pigs should be based on the following:

- The list of holdings would rapidly become comprehensive. It would feature a

procedure - annual at least - for checking reliability and updating. It would have

to allow rapid access to the identification number, the address, the type of

production and the size of every holding on the list. The information would have

to be collated and classified in such a way as to facilitate centralisation and

aggregation. In the medium term, national systems would be centralised

electronically into a compatible European network which would at all times have

to reflect recorded livestock numbers.

**18**

 - The holding register should record all livestock entering or leaving the holding,

including births, deaths, loans, temporary movements, etc. It would have to be

listed daily or perhaps in some cases - in particular small holdings - weekly. If

they do not relate to individual animals, such data should at least cover highly

specific categories. The minimum amount of information and the categories of

animals would have to be determined at European level.

 - The animal movement documents would have to conform to a European model

which allowed trade to be monitored easily and featured (a) a stub to be attached

to the register for the holding and (b) a copy - retained by the

consignee - accompanying the consignment concerned. The control and sanction

procedures, which would be defined at national level, would have to be notified

on request and be scrutinised at European level.

- The marking of the animals would have to satisfy the following minimum

requirements:

At six months of age all sheep, goats and pigs animals would have to have an

eartag indicating the number of the holding of origin;

Eartagging would be compulsory for the movement of sheep, goats and pigs of

age between two and six months. Where suitable, easily legible tattoos could

replace eartags in the case of animals being sent from a holding to a

slaughterhouse;

For the movement of animals aged less than two months compulsory marking

could be performed by means of some 'painting'.

In order to be operational the identification system must at all costs feature mutually

compatible national procedures and must therefore be harmonised at European level. The

identification system for sheep and goats, and that for pigs, should therefore be

introduced by way of a Council Regulation containing provisions that would be

mandatory in every Member State. In order to take account of specific situations and

**19**

**differences in terms of the progress achieved, the future Council Regulation should allow**

**certain exceptions in justified cases, and permit Member States to adopt additional**

**provisions at national level if they so wish, provided this does not entail any barrier to**

**trade.**

**20**

###### ANNEX I

**LIVESTOCK POPULATION** **TO BE** **INCLUDED** **IN THE**

**IDENTIFICATION** **AND** **REGISTRATION SYSTEM**

**(Thousands** **of** **heads** **in 1995)**

```
 Annual

slaughter

 226

  69

 2069

 12531

 21976

 8706

 4264

 8443

 643

 280

 1288

  75

 189

 19234

 79993

```

```
 Annual

slaughter

 11294

 19873

 39361

 2268

 27539

 24859

 3003.

 11992

 112

 18616

 4954

 4209

 2066

 3743

 14388

 188277

```

11

```
  BOVINE

 Presence Annual

in December(1) slaughter

```

```
 PORCINE

Presence(1)

in December

  7215

  10709

  23737

  936

  17583

  14524

  1542

  7964

  68 "

  13958

  3703

  2400

  1395

  2331

  7203

 115268

```

```
 OVINE/CAPRINE

 Presence

in December(1)

   127

   79

  2429

  14788

  25982

  11388

  5772

  12129

   6

   1353

   392

  4235

   85

  488

  29574

  108827

```

```
1047

 758

4751

 315

1990

6011

1515

4732

 23 '

2379

 663

 396

 393

 531

3292

28796

```

```
BE

DK

DE

EL

ESP

FR

IRL

IT

LUX

NL

OS

PT

SF

SV

UK

TOTAL

```

```
3147

2094

15890

 550

5432

20662

6531

7128

 204

4558

2323

1317

1179

1762

11673

84450

```

(1) December 1994

###### ANNEX II

**DIRECTIVE 92/102/EEC** **-** **TRANSPOSITION STATUS**

**OVINE/CAPRINE**

**01.01.95**

1996

1994

1995

1995

1996

NOT YET

1996

1996

1995

1996

1994

1996

1995

NOT YET

1995

**PORCINE**

**01.01.94**

1990 (National legislation

introduced for the

identification of pigs)

1994

1994

1995

1996       

1995

1996

1996

1995

1994/1996

1994

1995

1995

NOT YET

1995

**MEMBER STATE**

**Deadline** **for** **transposition**

BELGIUM

DENMARK

GERMANY

ELLAS

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND .

ITALY

LUXEMBOURG

THE NETHERLANDS

PORTUGAL

UNITED KINGDOM

AUSTRIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

**BOVINE**

**01.10.93**

1993

1994

1995

1995

1994

1995

1996

1996

1995

1993

1994

1995

1995

1995

1995

_**22**_

###### ISSN 0254-1475

## COM(98) 207 final

# **DOCUMENTS**

#### EN 03 15 16 Catalogue number : CB-C0-98-221-EN-C ISBN 92-78-32986-X

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

L-2985 Luxembourg

#### **_13_**