Dr. Ed G.M. van Klink and Ing. H. Kampf
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality,
National Reference Centre
1. Introduction.
In The Netherlands, grazing of nature areas with large herbivores other than red deer, fallow deer, roe deer and wild boar, has increased considerably over the last decade. As early as the 80-s grazing projects with Heck cattle and Scottish Highland cattle took place, while grazing domestic cattle, predominantly young animals and dry cows, has existed for much longer. Grazing moorlands with sheep has a very long history indeed (Kampf, 2002). apart from the Heck and Scottish Highland cattle, several breeds of horses are also used. Not only Koniks, the breed, that comes closest to the original European wild horse, the Tarpan, but also Iceland, and Shetland horses are used.
European and national veterinary legislation is designed for the commercial sectors specifically. In the practice of grazing animals in nature reserves this proves to be a bottleneck in several aspects. Both the practical implications of the legislation and the aim and reason of having large herbivores in a nature area sometimes cause problems. An overview of relevant legislation will be given.
There are several types of management of natural grazing areas in The Netherlands, depending on the size of the area and the measure to which the animals are controlled by the caretaker. In this presentation, the types of management will be explained, and the consequences of this for aspects of veterinary law will be illustrated.
2. Veterinary legislation within the European Union.
The general aim of legislation in the European Union is, to harmonise law between member states. The reason for this is, that, when all member states design their legal systems in a comparable way, there is no cause for hampering trade between states within the community. The national governments are supposed to implement the European legislation into their national law. The European Union has different types of legislation: directives, that give the minimum requirements to be implemented, regulations, that have to be implemented entirely, and decisions, that normally govern relatively small issues, mostly not related to legislation that needs to be implemented at national level.
For the trade in animals and animal products, veterinary law is a major component of the harmonised European legislation. All in all, the European Union has issued at this moment around 10 regulations, over 70 directives and over 300 decisions in the field of veterinary and zootechnical law. The most important European veterinary legislation consists of rules governing trade in and traffic of animals, of rules on the control of animal diseases, and rules on identification and registration of animals. Only the most important legislation will be discussed here. In many cases secondary legislation, supporting the main body of legislation, has also been drawn up, but it goes into too much detail to discuss all those in this presentation. The regulations on the control of contagious animal diseases will also not be discussed in detail, although some elements will turn up in the presentation.
The main goal of the veterinary legislation is, to make sure that animals do not pose a threat to the health status of other animals, both within countries, but even more so in the international transfer between countries. To achieve this, the member states must be firmly in control of the animal health situation. They must be able to give guarantees to member states to whom animals and animal products are transported, that their animals are healthy, and no serious animal health threats are present in the country.
If serious illnesses do exist, the country will have to do anything in its power to eliminate this disease again, and make sure that the disease is not exported to other member states. The serious illnesses that have to be controlled are those listed on the so called list A of the Organisation Internationale des Épizooities (OIE), based in Paris, France. The OIE is an intergovernmental organisation, consisting of 162 Member Countries. In the OIE the members discuss what to do about animal diseases world-wide. The basis is formed here for a global standardised approach to controlling animal disease. The list A contains for example foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, avian influenza etc.
When list A diseases break out, the animals that may possibly have been affected by it, or that have been in contact with diseased animals, must be traced back as soon as possible. If they pose a grave danger for the spread of the disease, they will often have to be killed or in some cases vaccinated. The member state will have to inform the European Commission of its efforts and its progress in controlling the disease. The Commission may send missions to the country to check on the progress. If the progress is satisfactory, the European Union will contribute to the cost of the control of the outbreak. In many cases it is possible to restrict control measures to specified regions within the country, so that trade can continue from other parts of the country.
If the rules are followed, member states can never refuse animals and products from other member states, if the health status is at a comparable or higher level as its own. The legislation allows countries to eradicate other diseases, of the so called OIE list B, which gives them the right to demand the same level of health from animals and products to be imported. Some European countries aim for a very high level, such as Denmark, while others are far from being able to achieve higher levels. If member states draw up plans to eradicate diseases from the list B, and the European Commission approves them, they can get financial support from the EU for these eradication programmes.
A very important directive governing the trade of cattle and pigs, is Directive 64/432/EEC (renewed through Directive 97/12/EC). In this directive all the details are laid down of the requirements that must be fulfilled both at the animal level and at the national level in order to be able to trade in these animals. Articles 9 and 10 of this directive give member states the possibility to aim for disease free statuses, as earlier mentioned. It is very important, that the member state is able to prove its status. This has to be done by regular sampling and monitoring. The programme by which this is done has to be reported to and approved by the Commission.
Directive 90/425 arranges the veterinary controls within the European Union. The basis is, that controls for the soundness of animals and animal products are no longer done by the receiving member state at the point of entry, but guarantees are given by the sending member state, at the point of departure. This means, that the official veterinarians of the sending member state have to certify the health and soundness of the animals and the products. They put their signature on the document, the certificate, that accompanies the produce to the receiver. The receiving member state can do spot checks, but is not allowed to do a full, 100 % check on all produce coming in. The certificate must be enough.
Both in order to trace back animals in case of an outbreak of an animal disease, or in case forbidden substances are found, and in order to substantiate freedom of disease, it is important to be able to prove the identity and location of animals. Therefore the European Union has issued strict requirements for the identification and registration of animals in the livestock industry. Originally there was one directive, Directive 92/102, for the identification and registration of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs.
Mainly because of the problems with the BSE in cattle, the identification and registration of cattle was taken out of this directive in 1997. From that moment on, it was ruled by the Regulation 820/97, in the meantime already replaced by Regulation 1760/2000. The identification and registration system for cattle requires the application of two eartags for each animal, one in each ear, at an age of not later than 20 days. On the eartags, an individual number must be present, by which the animal can be identified. The information on the location of the animal must be reported to a central automated database. Whenever an animal is moving from one location to the other, it must be reported to the central database within three working days. When animals travel, they must be accompanied by a travel document, stating their identity and some details on their background. When an animal dies, or when it is slaughtered, it also must be reported.
In the trade directive, Directive 64/432 as earlier mentioned, article 14 states, that member countries must establish a central database system, a control network system, in which, apart from the identification and registration system, detailed information is stored on farms, their owners, their location, who is responsible, etc. It should also include the name of the veterinarian who is in charge of that farm. Also, all kinds of information on controls carried out on these farms are to be entered.
As can be seen, cattle is registered from birth to death in a very detailed way. It is even more detailed than the registration of the civil population in many countries. All directives and regulations related to animal health and trade in animals and animal products in the European Union refer to the identification and registration system.
Another issue with which the European Union is concerned, is the rendering of carcasses and animal products unfit for human consumption. The Directive 92/118 and the Regulation 1774/2002 include the rules to deal with animal waste materials. It distinguishes various categories of animal waste, depending on the size of the expected risk for human and animal health the waste could provide. For material in the lightest category, some possibilities remain to include them in foods for dogs and cats. This material is always material that was gained at slaughter form healthy animals. For other categories, including animals that have died, either form a disease or from another cause, the main rule is, that the material has to be rendered in a rendering plant, until meat and bone meal remains. Previously, this meat and bone meal could be used in animals feeds for ruminants, but at present it is no longer allowed to use it for this purpose.
3. Types of management of natural grazing areas in The Netherlands
The Dutch national nature policy distinguishes three land management strategies (Kampf, 2002). In all three, grazing with large herbivores can be an issue. The three management types are:
- Multifunctional management: in this type the main aim is to improve the quality of nature, the nature values. Much of the area is grazed, including habitats for meadow birds. Normally, commercial livestock breeds are used to graze these areas. they are often leased out to farmers to graze their cattle on.
- Semi-natural management: in this type the aim is to expand sensitive landscape types. Grazing by large herbivores may or may not be important in these areas. if used, it is meant to maintain and develop biodiversity. Breeds that can easily adapt themselves to extensive circumstances are often used: heathland sheep, Scottish Highland cattle, Fjord horses, Limousin cattle). In some cases commercial stock is also used. In large areas deer and wild boar are often living.
- “Near-natural” and assisted natural management: in these systems large herbivores are part of the ecosystem. In some cases there is a specific aim of promoting biodiversity. in this case Breeds are used that are bred and selected for feralisation, such as Heck cattle, Konik horses, Scottish Highland cattle. In large areas red deer and wild boar are also present.
In the first two types the management of the animals is not principally different from the management of animals in the traditional livestock industry. This means that all veterinary regulations apply to these animals. In the third type, this is different. The express aim of this type of management is, to let the population develop into a wild population. Therefore there is as little interference by man as possible. This also means, that it is for example not only not desirable to apply eartags, but it is also virtually impossible to apply them, since the animals are not approachable.
In The Netherlands, at the moment two areas are designated as “near-natural”. These are the Oostvaardersplassen, where Heck cattle, Konik horses, red deer and roe deer range as large herbivores, and the Veluwezoom, where Scottish Highland cattle, wild boar, red and roe deer are present.
4. Dilemmas.
The veterinary legislation of the European Union, as well as the implementation of this legislation at the national level, discusses animals as they are kept in the livestock industry. In the definitions of these rules and regulations, the animals species is generally mentioned, in some cases even the genus. The consequence of this is, that the veterinary law applies not only to animals kept on farms, but to all animals of the specified species. This can lead to conflict.
For the Multifunctional management nature areas and the Semi-natural management nature areas there is not really a problem. The animals are principally managed in the same manner as animals in the commercial livestock industry. Obviously, the goals of keeping the animals is in most cases fundamentally different, but keeping animals here is a for of extensive livestock keeping. The animals in these areas generally are subject to the legislation. The one exception in The Netherlands, is, that not in all areas the calves are eartagged within the prescribed period. Normally, once or twice a year there is a roundup where all new-born animals are tagged, and animals that have lost a tag are re-tagged. In those areas where commercial farmers graze their animals in nature reserves, the animals comply entirely with the legislation.
For the “Near-natural” and assisted natural management areas, the situation is entirely different. Man is supposed to interfere as little as possible in these areas. The animals living in them are supposed to become as wild as possible. Koene and Gremmen (2002) describe this process as de-domestication. The de-domestication process does not go along well with the requirements of the European legislation. Obviously it is by all means possible to take samples if so required. But the European legislation demands that samples, and with that the animals from which the samples are drawn, are identified according to the rules. The legislation on the identification and registration of cattle, which is extremely strict in the European Union, is therefore the main bottleneck and the main cause of controversy. If taken strictly, it would not be possible to have cattle graze areas in this manner within the boundaries of the law.
Still, we do have this goal of creating natural habitats with wild animals. It may even become more important in future, when policy is looking at creating a European ecological network. Can it be done responsibly? And what should be done to do it responsibly?
The rendering of carcasses is another issue. The European legislation as well as the national rules, indicate that species of domestic animals have to be rendered after their death. Again, only the species name is defined. This means that all animals of the species mentioned are in principle subject to these regulations. In the “Near-natural” areas, it is physically impossible to find every carcass in time. In areas with wild boar the carcasses are often already eaten, in marshy areas dying animals trend to hide in reed beds or shrubs. Besides, it was found that carcasses of large animals play a role in enhancing biodiversity. In the Netherlands, a carcass beetle was found in a carcass of a cow, which was believed to have become extinct in the 19th century.
The commercial livestock industry in The Netherlands is fairly intensive. The industry relies on a 70 % export level. Therefore it is very important to maintain a high standard of animal health. The sectors are faced with a large number of rules and regulations, not only through the European Union, but also through the national channels, and not only for animal health, but also for manure, environment and animal welfare. Because of this situation, the farmers in The Netherlands are very critical of the management of the animals in the Oostvaardersplassen and the Veluwezoom. They claim that the animals pose a threat to the animal health situation of The Netherlands, and, moreover, they are very dissatisfied with the fact that, as they claim: “we have to abide by all kinds of strict rules, and these nature people can just do whatever they like and come away with it”.
The involvement of the farmer community in particular has also prompted extra attention to animal welfare issues. The national organisation for the protection of animals, the Dierenbescherming, was always critical of placing animals back in nature. The discussion circles around the question what can and cannot be done with the animals. In the Animal Health and Welfare Act of The Netherlands, it is stated that anyone is obliged to provide animals with “the necessary care”, and to prevent “unnecessary suffering”. The debate is about what is necessary care and unnecessary suffering. Is an animal that is dying peacefully of old age suffering? If an animal, that has always lived in the wild, appears to be lame, should it be captured and nursed back to health in a stable? Should periods of food scarcity be solved, or can they be regarded as natural occurrences with which animals will have to (learn to) deal?
5. Possible solutions.
In The Netherlands, policy on nature management and on veterinary service are within the same ministry. This often leads to interesting debates within the ministry itself. The aims of nature conservation have been set by the ministry, while the responsibility to take care of the important animal health issues is also dealt with by the same ministry. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality is supposed to carry out the EU legislation, too.
When the identification and registration system for cattle was started in the early nineties of the twentieth century, the dilemma’s mentioned above surfaced. Before that time, the organisations running the Oostvaardersplassen and the Veluwezoom could fairly well carry on as they planned. In order to deal with the dilemma’s, a group was set up, the veterinary support group for nature, involving not only the ministry departments, but also the livestock sectors and the nature management organisations, as well as the animal welfare protection organisation. In the long years of its existence, now around ten years, lengthy debates have been conducted to discuss and try to solve the problems that were found.
The discussions in the group have had significant influences on the policy decisions made by the successive ministers and state secretaries. It has led to a policy, whereby the animals in the two areas are exempt from the obligation to be eartagged, but with the strict requirement that they may under no circumstances be transported to anywhere, or be killed for consumption. Furthermore, an animal health monitoring system is imposed specifically for these animals, based on a sample of around 20 animals that are shot specifically for the purpose. This monitoring programme is based on work by, among others, Van Leeuwen and Van Essen (2002).
At first an exemption from the rendering act was arranged, allowing the managers of the two areas to leave carcasses of animals, that had died of natural causes in the field. After heavy opposition from the livestock sectors, the exemption had to be revoked. At the moment the arrangement is, that carcasses, if found relatively in time, will be removed and taken out for rendering. In the field, the objective of having large carcasses, is now often being solved by leaving the carcasses of red deer that have been shot or have died.
For the animal welfare issues, a code of conduct has been drawn up, looking at the issues of sick and wounded animals, dying animals and situations of food shortage.
In the case of sick and wounded animals, the decision what to do depends on the prognosis. If the animal stands a good change of complete recovery and the is not suffering too much from the injuries, nothing is done. If a serious disease is suspected, it may be decided to kill the animal in order to investigate it. If the animal does not seem to have a good chance of recovery, or if it is suffering seriously, it is shot. Every nature area must have a consulting veterinarian, who can help with taking these decisions, along with regular inspections of the animals.
In case animals are dying, again the assessment has to be made whether the animal is suffering. If an animal is dying peacefully of old age, it is left to die on its own. If it is dying of serious wounds or injuries, it is killed.
In principle no feed is ever supplied. Periods of shortage are a fact of nature, and animals will have to deal with them. In general, food shortages will not be so severe, that animals are dying of it in large numbers. Cattle can easily stand a period of diminished food supply. They can loose quite a lot of weight without experiencing problems. Furthermore, supplying food will accelerate the reproduction, and will aggravate future food shortages. Only when catastrophes are eminent, threatening the survival of the population, food will be supplied.
Have we now solved all our dilemma’s? The solutions that have been found are not in line with European legislation. As long as it is made sure, that the animals are kept out of the normal trade and transport circles, and are certainly not entered into the intra-community trade, the feeling is, that for the two areas a situation has been created with which they can live. Nevertheless, the discussion is still going on, and if nature policy is to be expanded into the future, working towards ecological networks, the current solution may not be sufficient.
There are two lines along which a more structural situation could probably be reached. Firstly, a common understanding of the policy towards use of large herbivores, their significance for animal health and the welfare issues is being sought within the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. For that purpose, a project has been carried out within the Reference Centre. The result of that project is a report that will be completed shortly. Secondly, room should probably be sought in the European legislation to define animals in commercial settings differently from animals in nature. This is undoubtedly a difficult judicial process, and more importantly, there must be interest and willingness among member states to put the subject on the agenda. This will require a lot of effort, because, after a long period of serious animal health calamities, including foot and mouth disease and BSE, the atmosphere for changes of this kind within the Union does not seem very favourable.
6. References.
- European Union, 1990. Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market. Official Journal L 224 , 18/08/1990 P. 0029 - 0041.
- European Union, 1992. Directive 92/102/ EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals. Official Journal L 355 , 05/12/1992 P. 0032 - 0036.
- European Union, 1992. Directive 92/118/ EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC. Official Journal L 062 , 15/03/1993 P. 0049 - 0068
- European Union, 1997. Directive 97/12/ EC of 17 March 1997 amending and updating Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine. Official Journal L 109 , 25/04/1997 P. 0001 - 0037
- European Union, 2002. Directive 2002/33/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2002 amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products. Official Journal L 315 , 19/11/2002 P. 0014 - 0015
- European Union, 1997. Commission Regulation (EC) Nr. 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products. Official Journal L 117 , 07/05/1997 P. 0001 - 0008
- European Union, 1997. Commission Regulation (EC) Nr. 2630/97 of 29 December 1997 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal L 354 , 30/12/1997 P. 0023 - 0024
- European Union, 2002. Regulation (EC) Nr. 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Official Journal L 273 , 10/10/2002 P. 0001 - 0095
- European Union, 2000. Regulation (EC) Nr. 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97. Official Journal L 204 , 11/08/2000 P. 0001 - 0010
- Kampf, H, 2002. Large herbivores and government policy. Vakblad Natuurbeheer, English edition, May, pp. 56-59.
- Koene, P., en B. Gremmen, 2002. Wildheid gewogen. Samenspel van ethologie en ehtiek bij de de-domesticatie van grote grazers. NWO ethiek en Beleid, Wageningen. (in Dutch).
- Leeuwen, J.M. van, and G.J. van Essen, 2002. Health risks between large herbivores, farm animals and man. Vakblad Natuurbeheer, English edition, May, pp. 37-39.