Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)525 - Electronic identification of bovine animals and deletion of the provisions on voluntary beef labelling - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)525 - Electronic identification of bovine animals and deletion of the provisions on voluntary beef labelling. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)525  |
| date | 30-08-2011 |
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (which establishes a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and labelling of beef and beef products -including voluntary labelling- and includes the elements “double ear tag”, “holding register”, “cattle passport” and “computerised database”) was listed as ' information obligations with special importance in terms of the burdens they impose on businesses' under the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (COM (2009)544) on an 'Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU' i.
The Action Plan of the new EU Animal Health Strategy i foresees the Commission to simplify information obligations (e.g. holding registers, passports) in the course of introduction of bovine electronic identification (EID). A Regulatory proposal for ordinary legislative procedure is planned in the Commission's Agenda Planning for first semester of 2011.
However, when the current rules for bovine identification were adopted in 1997, EID was not sufficiently developed from the technical point of view as to be applied at that moment for cattle. EID based on radio frequency identification (RFID) has considerably developed during the last 10 years and provides for a faster and more accurate reading of individual animal codes directly into data processing systems, saving labour costs for manual reading but at the same time, increasing equipment costs. Thus, the existing legislation on bovine identification does not reflect these latest technological developments. The use of electronic identifiers could help to reduce the administrative burden and paper-work, for instances when the holding register is kept on a computerised form (which is the case for a growing percentage of farms), by using automatic reading and by using automatic entry into the register. In addition, a faster and more reliable system will allow, among others, a faster and higher reading accuracy than classical ear-tags, easing the procedure to report animal movements to the central data base and therefore provides for better and faster traceability of infected animals and/or infected food.
Based on the EID current technological advances, several EU Member States have decided on a voluntary basis, to start implementing bovine EID. Experience outside the EU shows also an increasing use of bovine EID. In addition, EID has been already introduced in the EU for several animal species (most of them as mandatory).
The current legal framework does not prohibit Member States from using electronic identifiers on a voluntary basis, but this must be done in addition to the official conventional visible ear tags. As no harmonised technical EU standards have been established, different types of electronic identifiers and readers with different RFID frequencies could be used in different places. Therefore each Member State might select the standards it wants and this approach is likely to lead to a lack of harmonisation jeopardising electronic exchange of data and then the benefits of having EID systems would be lost.
In relation to voluntary beef labelling, there is a need to reduce the excessive administrative burden in the voluntary system which is currently in place. Regulation (EC) No 820/97 established a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and labelling of beef and beef products, which was further strengthened by Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. It concerns the compulsory indication of the origin of the cattle (born/fattened/slaughtered) from which the beef originated (this proposal does not include any new provisions in relation to mandatory requirements for beef labelling), compulsory references to the identification code number of the slaughtered animal, and the establishments where the meat has been processed (slaughterhouse and meat cutting plant) and also a formal Commission approval procedure including a notification requirement for any additional labelling information other than compulsory ones. Already in 2004 the Commission submitted a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the beef labelling part of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 i that pointed out deficiencies of the voluntary beef labelling scheme. Those were that the system is not applied in a uniform way in all Member States (e.g. the administrative practice differs considerably between the Member States ) and that all indications included in the label (including those that are not related to origin, traceability or quality characteristics of the meat) would be subject to a formal approval procedure by the competent authority. The Commission Staff Working Document on Simplification of the CAP i points out the suggestion put forward by the “High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens” (Stoiber Group). The Stoiber Group suggested repealing the notification requirement with regard to the use of additional voluntary labelling indications other than those which are compulsory for beef.[7]
This proposal takes into account the results of the consultations which took place with interested parties and the result of an impact assessment. The impact assessment concluded that introducing bovine EID on a voluntary basis as a tool for official identification would allow actors to have time to familiarise themselves with the EID system and to identify the added value it would bring in particular circumstances. This option is preferable as it leaves open to EU Member States and all the private actors involved to organise themselves, so they can evaluate the benefits considering regional differences, different types of production and it is flexible enough to receive support from authorities and stakeholders that will benefit the enforcement of the rules. The voluntary introduction of EID implies that EID would be chosen by the keepers that are likely to have immediate benefits for farm management. This is an individual decision taken for economic reasons ( market driven ) by each operator. Under the voluntary regime, bovine animals could be identified by two conventional ear tags (current system), or by one conventional visible ear tag and one electronic identifier (i.e. an electronic ear tag or a bolus) conforming to EU-harmonised standards that have been officially approved. The proposed introduction of electronic identification on a voluntary basis provides also the option for EU Member States to opt for a mandatory regime in their national territory . In case the Member State opts for the mandatory regime, each bovine animal is to be identified by one conventional visible ear tag and one electronic identifier. An EU mandatory regime may not be the best approach at the moment as some stakeholders (e.g. small farmers) would be disadvantaged economically. However besides cost considerations, it would be ideally the most efficient option in terms of consumer protection (traceability), reduction of administrative burden, and to avoid risks related to the co-existence of two systems of identification. This option would be also partially justifiable in terms of better coherence with EU policies on EID in other animal species (e.g. sheep).
Therefore, as a mandatory implementation of EID might economically affect some operators in a non-advantageous way, the preferred option for introduction of EID is a voluntary regime where EID is considered an acceptable and suitable legal means of identification of bovine animals, with the possibility for Member States to introduce a mandatory regime at national level.
In addition, there is a need to align Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') has led to significant changes in the framework for the adoption of delegated and implementing acts. As regards the adoption of delegated and implementing acts, TFEU clearly distinguishes between the two.
- Article 290 TFEU on delegated acts provides for the legislator(s) to control the exercise of the Commission's powers by means of a right of revocation and/or a right of objection.
- Article 291 TFEU on implementing acts provides for the control by Member States of the Commission's implementing powers. A legal framework establishing the mechanisms of such control is set out in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers.[8]
In relation to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission made the following statement:
"The Commission will proceed to an examination of all legislative acts in force which were not adapted to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in order to assess if those instruments need to be adapted to the regime of delegated acts introduced by Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission will make the appropriate proposals as soon as possible and no later than at the dates mentioned in the indicative calendar annexed to this declaration." i
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 is one of the legislative acts that had not been adapted in the past to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny and must therefore be aligned to the new legal framework of delegated and implementing acts.
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 should therefore be reviewed and amended accordingly as regards simplification and reducing of administrative burden and introducing new provisions related to bovine identification and voluntary beef labelling.
This draft proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and the Council has no financial implications for the budget of the European Union.