MEPs vote to remove EID from cross compliance

MEPs have voted to exempt sheep EID from cross compliance as the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee signed off its position on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform.

The UK sheep industry has become increasingly concerned at the prospect of losing some of their Single Payment through cross compliance penalties through no fault of their own when EID technology fails.

The Agriculture Committee backed a proposal from German MEP Albert Dess to completely remove EID from the cross compliance rules as they voted on amendments to the European Commission’s CAP proposals on Wednesday and Thursday.

 Scottish Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon urged the EU Commission to reconsider its approach to cross compliance penalties following the message sent by MEPs.

“Forcing sheep farmers to jump through hoops to maintain their single farm payments is simply not right. The Scottish industry has bent over backwards to comply with the EID rules but it has been clear since the legislation came into force that they are unworkable for the majority of Scottish sheep farmers,” he said.

“While this is only half time in the ‘CAP game’ the Commission will have to reconsider their hard line approach to EID and X compliance before final negotiations begin in March.”

Mr Lyon has been appointed to the five-strong team of negotiators for the final talks with the Commission and Farm Ministers on keys parts of the CAP reforms, including direct payments.

Scottish National Party MEP Alyn Smith, who also sits on the committee, described the EID vote as a ‘scoop’.

“We have seen all SMRs relating to animal ID deleted, meaning that sheep EID would be taken out of cross-compliance altogether. I know all too well just how much of a relief this would be to so many of our farmers. Of course, we’ll need to see how it fares in plenary and in negotiations with Council but certainly the Committee has made a very clear statement today,” he said.

The NFU has welcomed the vote by MEPs to support an extension of the EU’s sugar regime until the 2019/2020 marketing year.

NFU sugar board chairman William Martin said: “NFU Sugar has worked hard on behalf of farmers to make sure the position of our industry is heard and well understood by MEPs. We are therefore delighted that they have responded positively to our requests and recognised that the European beet sector would face damaging upheaval if the Commission’s proposals to end the regime in 2015 came to fruition.”

 He said it was it was vital that MEPs had agreed to allow sugar growers to be represented by a in contractual negotiations by a single body through the powers of an inter-professional agreement.

“This safeguard is vital to give growers the necessary balance in the market as there is an only one purchaser and processor of sugar beet in this country,” he said.

On Wednesday, the Agriculture Committee voted on a number of areas of the reform process. Key measures included easing the burden of ‘greening’ on farmers, reintroducing capping into the package, allowing member states to transfer money between the two Pillars, allowing re-coupling of subsidies to production and beefing up intervention rules.

While large parts of the Parliament’s reform package will be welcomed by farmers, UK MEPs have criticised the moves to boost intervention.

Julie Girling, Conservative agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament, said: “Worst of all this protectionists’ charter will bring back rampant interventionism.  It threatens to send us back to the bad old days of butter mountains and wine lakes and of inefficient European farmers sitting pretty on a cushion of taxpayers’ money.”

Mr Smith said the vote to allow ‘double funding’ whereby farmers would get paid twice to do the same thing in the rural development report ‘will need to be cleared up’ in the wider Parliament vote scheduled for March or in talks between MEPs and Farm Ministers.

But he concluded: “All in all, a good bit of work to get us here and if this is the general shape of the Parliament’s position as we head into negotiations then I think Scottish farming is sitting in a promising position for the next CAP.”

Readers' comments (2)

  • At last some sense! Well done to all the MEPs who have supported this move!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The process of introduction of EID regulations has been fraught with errors, misunderstandings and failure by politicians and bureaucrats to spot unforeseen and damaging consequences of certain aspects of the regulations. That, coupled with vested interests, has made the process very challenging!
    Examples of the sort of idiocies are:
    • Failure to have a single rule on Slaughter tags...EID or not?
    • The idiocy that a EID slaughter tag has only half of the RFID number printed on the outside and visible
    • The failure to introduce a single movement database for all of the UK
    • The failure to reconcile the rules for each country in the UK
    • The establishment of CCRPs with no legal standing or responsibility
    • Initially requiring all Breeding ewes to be tagged by 2012...subsequently changed to 2015 to allow historic ewes who will never move off holding of birth to die out naturally.
    • The obsession with cross compliance penalties in the belief that such draconian measures will ensure all aspects of compliance. Another example is the Scottish Landowner who loses SFP if his shooting tenant's keeper poisons a raptor.
    This last one is the subject of the vote in the European Parliament. The severity of the cross compliance rules is extremely unpopular (20%of farms inspected in England in 2012 suffered between 3 and 5% loss of SFP). "A triumph!" cry the bureaucrats. "A disaster!" cries the sheep industry (represented by the NSA. Lets look at it closely!
    If you are a dairy farmer in the fat lowlands of Cheshire, Salop, Herfs and Glos you like to over-winter Welsh sheep to earn some rent and to tidy up the grass. If you are inspected and there are issues with Tags and you risk 5% of SFP which is based on your Dairy farm, what will be your reaction? No, I am not going to risk it! Result no 'tac' for Welsh hill farmers. Another case is the arable farmer who has always bought a few hundred store lambs to fatten on his rotational root crops. He is not going to risk SFP worth thousands for a few hundred he will make on his store lambs.
    Two examples of 'unforeseen consequences' which reduce the market or put extra cost on farmers. To take EID out of cross compliance is sound and will reduce the heat and thunder about EID as it removes an unnecessarily aggressive aspect of the penalty regime.
    I believe this will affect attitudes to Eid implementation positively for companies like StockTrace Ltd for the following reasons:
    • No-one (especially farmers!) likes being cudgelled into obeying
    • It does not affect in any way the imposition of EID rules for recording and tracking sheep. The extra reporting burden remains
    • There will still be penalties for failure to comply such as fines from Weights and Measures or Trading Standards but those sanctions will not be so disproportionally severe as to stop farmers from having sheep
    • It removes a sharp thorn from the industry's foot and takes away one of the props of the dedicated Luddite anti EID lobby (which, incidentally is greatly reduced anyway)
    EID CAN be good!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Register your email address for Farmers Guardian e-bulletins

Get the latest from Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today

Already receiving bulletins? Sign-in to edit your preferences