The NFU livestock board has called on Defra to increase transparency on aspects of its new sheep movement policy. The union has asked for more clarity on the future of sheep movement recording after Defra claimed a switch to a computerised database would provide benefits for the sector, including improved disease control. 

Following discussion over the past few years about the formation of a national database to record sheep movements, Defra introduced the electronic recording system, stating that it would have benefits over the old paper system, including reducing the weight of bureaucracy on farmers, who would not need to fill in the same information several times. image expired

In response, the NFU has called on Defra to address the implications for producers, including costs, the switch from paper-based systems, IT equipment and the scope for further development, of the new policy.

Alistair Mackintosh, chair of the NFU livestock board, said, “We agree that the present manual system (AMLS) which livestock producers use for identifying and recording sheep movements is out of date and inefficient. It is essential that we have an efficient system of movement tracking in place in order to control animal disease issues and quickly regain export markets after any outbreak.”

Mr Mackintosh said that, having considered the new rules, there are significant potential benefits which it could bring to both industry and government. However, he noted, “There are certain conditions that must be met. Defra needs to be clear on the benefits of such a scheme to producers, what would be required of them, the additional costs and who would foot the bill. The government must continue to bear the full cost and farmers should not have to pay in order to carry out their legal movement recording requirements.”

The NFU is also demanding that any future database is developed alongside the package of measures made by the independent Macdonald task force report on farming regulation and that it makes provision for producers who do not have access to the latest technology or who have limited IT skills.

The union said that, although its concerns persist over the launch of such a database, it would support the initiative providing several conditions were met:

• A business case must be made which highlights the benefits to producers and any additional costs or implications for them.
• Compulsory provision of information to the database by producers should be restricted to the statutory movement information required by legislation as per the existing AML1 forms.
• The government should continue to bear the full cost of the statutory movement reporting service, as at present. 
• Any database should be developed with the ability to handle the range of tagging options that we presently have available to producers.
• The NFU believes provision should be made for producers to who have insufficient IT linkage/skills and those who do not wish to go down a digital route.
• If a database is developed then its governance should have producer input/representation to ensure the interests of producers are fully represented. 
• If a database is developed then we would want to see a commitment from government that farmers who choose to do so could keep all their on-farm records electronically and would not have to keep manual records.
• It is essential that the issue of tolerance is resolved and a solution sought. The development of a database should be used as bargaining tool with the Commission to secure further flexibilities.
• The development of a database should be undertaken alongside the package of measures made within the Macdonald review and not treated in isolation.
• The database should be designed to facilitate any future changes to the “Farm Assurance” scheme that may require residency periods to be validated.
• The database should be “future proofed” and designed with the capability to support electronic reporting for all species. There are potentially many benefits from combining both bovine and ovine movements.