PAPER B

Purpose : For Decision

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

Date : 23 FEBRUARY 2005

Title : DISPOSAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS

JOINT REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FIRE, EMERGENCY PLANNING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AND THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UK AND EU REGIONAL ISSUES

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 7 March 2005

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. This report invites the Executive to determine whether or not the Council should seek a temporary derogation to exempt local farmers and livestock keepers from a legal obligation requiring disposal of fallen stock by burning in an approved incinerator or rendering in an approved processing plant.

BACKGROUND

2. On the Isle of Wight most of our 38,000 hectares are given over to farming and agricultural land, there are 850 registered stock keepers. The landscape of the Island is recognisably defined by farming and agricultural activity and the percentage of the Island workforce employed in these industries is 50% greater than the national average. Farming is crucial to the economic sustainability of the Island.

3. The Animal By-Products Order 1999 made under the Animal Health Act and enforced by the Council introduced controls on the disposal of materials broadly defined to include entire bodies or parts of animals or products of animal origin not intended for human consumption. In this context the term “animal” includes poultry.

The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 subsequently implemented EU adopted regulation (EC) Number 1774/2002 and introduced stricter animal and public health rules for the collection, storage, transport, handling, processing and use or disposal of all animal by-products (ABP). The rules apply throughout the European Union. The regulations introduce three categories of waste material; broadly defined as follows:

Category 1; the highest risk material and includes animals suspected of being affected by a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.

Category 2; includes animals that die on farm.

Category 3; includes former foodstuffs incorporating products of animal origin.

The regulations identify ABP disposal routes. In all cases an approved incinerator or processing plant (rendering plant) is permissible. Hunt kennels can provide an option.

4. In April 2004 the Biological Risks Unit of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection published guidance on applying this legislation. This guidance incorporates proposals for burial or burning in remote areas. It reads:-

The ABP Regulation (Article 24), like the TSE Regulation 999/2001 (Annex XI (8)), provides for derogation permitting the burial of ABP in remote areas and in the case of dead pet animals, except where they may have died of a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy). This article also allows the burial on farm of origin of ABP – other than materials from confirmed or suspected TSE cases – where a widespread outbreak of an OIE List A disease leads to lack of disposal capacity, or where the competent authority rules out transport for fear of propagating diseases. The derogation has now been established in Commission Regulation (EC) No 811/2003, and is designed for exceptional circumstances; it must be considered as the minimum requirement and preclude the risk of transmission of animal diseases such as TSE, taking into account Community and national environmental and public health legislation and guidance to minimise to the extent compatible with public order consideration (i) the risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, (ii) causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and (iii) adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. It must also be approved and verified by the competent authority.

Remote areas are defined somewhat loosely in the legislation. An area is deemed to be remote where “the animal population is so small and where facilities are so far away, that the arrangements necessary for collection and transport would be unacceptably onerous compared to local disposal”. The value of a ewe is currently about £60, a sow £120 and a one year old bovine £200. Collection and disposal costs quoted by a local contractor required to undertake a journey to a mainland facility have been quoted at £400.

5. Insofar as the Island is concerned there is no slaughterhouse or rendering plant. Incineration capacity is minimal. There are no immediate prospects of a high capacity incinerator being constructed.

Ferry services are provided by private operators. During busy summer months, particularly at the height of the main tourism season and when events of national significance take place ferries run at capacity. Farming and tourism on the island are mutually supportive activities but, in the case of ferry services sometimes mutually competitive activities. There can be practical difficulties securing short notice bookings on Island ferries if for example animal carcases must be disposed of at short notice.

6. Attempts have been made to determine indicative livestock figures for the Island. Information has been sourced from the British Cattle Movement Service Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA), the National Farmers Union and Council records. Officers estimate that during the course of the current year there will be on the Island:

Cattle - 15,000

Sheep - 36,000

Pigs - 12,000

Goats, deer - 500

Horses - 10,000

Poultry and game - 150,000

Officers have factored in mortality rates (in brackets) and used this information as a basis for estimating annual casualty numbers:-

Cattle (2.5%) - 375

Sheep (15%) - 5400

Pigs (8.5%) - 1020

Goats, deer (3%) - 15

Horses (5%) - 500

Poultry and game (15%) - 22500

Calves are excluded from these figures. It is understood that the Isle of Wight Hunt historically disposed of up to 1800 calves annually.

7. The UK government has confirmed that the Isles of Scilly and Lundy are “remote” and accordingly ABP originating in those areas may be disposed of by burning or burial provided that requisite public health and environmental safeguards are met.

Inquiries made with other EU Islands through the EU Islands Commission solicited a variety of responses. These are summarised below:-

i) Orkney

After representations were made to the Scottish Executive a temporary derogation permitting on farm burial was granted to Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles and parts of Highland Region. Orkney is a group of islands, 19 inhabited. The population of the main island is 14,000, remaining islands 5000. Farming is a key industry; off island exports are estimated at up to 25,000 cattle/year 70,000 sheep/year. The local Council view is that public health interests are well served by on farm burial of fallen stock. (There is an abattoir on Orkney but no incinerator).

ii) Argyll and Bute

It was confirmed that the Scottish Executive applies a derogation for remote and Island communities of Scotland. This is based on the lack of incineration or rendering facilities on or economically near these areas. The derogation is not fixed and as and when facilities become available the derogation is likely to fall. The Scottish Executive are facilitating a national fallen stock/carcase collection and disposal scheme.

iii) Gotland

There is one abattoir on Gotland, for cattle, horses, pigs and sheep. Offal is subsequently taken to the mainland for disposal in approved plants. Fallen stock are collected by a farmers’ organised “special company” called Swedish Farmers Services and again transported off island to approved plants. Carcases can be stored for some days before transport.

Small companion animals are buried on the island. Horses can also be buried on the Island legally, at agreed locations. On farm burial of fallen stock is only permitted in parts of the north of Sweden.

iv) Majorca and Minorca

There are currently no incineration plants for animal products in either island. In Majorca plans are being developed to build an incineration plant. In Minorca plans to build an incineration plant are well advanced, the plant should open in the next few months.

At present, and according to the derogation, fallen stock (and other animal by products) are buried having regard for necessary public health and environmental safeguards.

v) Cyprus

A derogation is in place allowing on farm or local burial of fallen stock. Government plans have been made for the collection of carcases for subsequent incineration in designated areas. Government is also encouraging the development of a private sector rendering service. An action plan is due to be implemented in 2005.

8. DEFRA has established the National Fallen Stock Company Ltd in the UK to provide a carcase collection and disposal service initially at subsidised rates. The company operates by letting contracts (after a tendering process) covering discrete geographical areas. The Isle of Wight Hunt secured a contract to operate for up to six months from last November. It is understood that the contract has lapsed.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

9. Animal By Product legislation is of crucial importance because it protects the environment and it protects public health; these are both corporate and national policy objectives. In this particular case these objectives conflict with a Council objective of encouraging job creation and economic prosperity. It can be argued that failure to identify a practical, cost realistic and legal solution to this problem could lead to decimation of livestock farming on the Island.

CONSULTATION

10. Extensive consultation has been undertaken over recent weeks with local and regional representatives of the National Farmers Union, representatives of the Isle of Wight Hunt, the Islands Area of Outstanding National Beauty project (AONB Officer) and the Member of Parliament.

All have expressed support for the Council seeking a temporary derogation from legislation prohibiting on farm carcase disposal in circumstances where safeguards are in place to protect public health and the environment.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

11. There is no significant cost linked to the Council making a formal application to DEFRA for a temporary derogation. Incidental costs will accrue for officer time. In making an application the Council would be seeking to protect local farmers from a financial burden that could place many of them at a major financial disadvantage when compared with mainland farmers and therein make their businesses no longer financially viable.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

12. As an Animal Health Authority the Council has a legal duty to enforce the Animal Health Act and regulations made under the Act. Enforcement is not optional. Insofar as the relevant regulations are concerned, officers find themselves in an invidious position. Advice is currently provided to those who request it about carcase collection and disposal requirements. It is reasonable to suggest that in time the Council will be obliged to adopt a robust approach to enforcement irrespective of there being a practical and financially affordable carcase collection and disposal service locally available.

OPTIONS

13. This is a matter where the Council could determine to take no action. In time, as breaches of the regulations are detected evidence would be placed before the courts and if proven, courts would determine the appropriateness of imposing a penalty.

14. The Council could resolve to make an application to DEFRA to secure a temporary derogation, it is suggested for 2 years, during which time burial would be authorised at approved sites. During those 2 years a permanent solution could be developed by the Council in partnership with others. That solution could involve a private sector operator developing a new Island carcase collection and disposal service or alternatively, the development of a local incineration facility.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

15. If the Council resolves to make an application for temporary derogation it has to be recognised that the application may be rejected. Discussions have taken place with DEFRA representatives both on and off the Island. It would appear that there is recognition that the Island has special circumstances that make both enforcement and compliance with the legislation more difficult than elsewhere. It has however been suggested by a DEFRA representative that the cost that a farmer faces in disposing of a carcase is of “marginal importance”. Note the earlier comment in paragraph 4.

16. This legislation is driven by consumer protection interests, predominantly interests that seek to protect the environment and public health. Historically carcases have been disposed of safely by on farm burial. The legal regime established to promote these consumer protection interests recognised that in some instances on farm burial should be allowed to continue, temporarily.

RECOMMENDATIONS

17. i) That this Council makes a formal application to the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and requests that a two year derogation be granted to the Isle of Wight in respect of the carcase burial prohibition imposed by the Animal By-Product Regulations.

ii) That this Council undertakes to work with the Environment Agency, DEFRA and any other relevant government agency to protect public health and the environment in the event that such a derogation is granted.

iii) That this Council encourages the provision on the Island of suitable facilities for the disposal of Animal By-Products.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

18. Animal By-Product Regulations 2003

19. Guidance from the Biological Risks Unit of the EU Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection – April 2004

20. Records of meetings held at NFU Office, Newport on 4 August 2004, 8 October 2004, 19 November 2004 and 21 January 2005.

21. LACORS Local Authority Enforcement Guidance Animal By Product Regulations 2003 August 2004.

22. Exchanges with animal specialists in Orkney, Argyll and Bute, Gotland, the Balearics, Cyprus concerning carcase disposal arrangements.

Contact Point : Rob Owen

Head of Consumer Protection

Tel: 823388

[email protected]

HARRY REES Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, UK and EU, Regional Issues

DAVID KNOWLES Portfolio Holder for Fire, Emergency Planning and Consumer Protection