1 / 12

FAO categories of risk status for livestock breeds: Incidence on EU regulations.

FAO categories of risk status for livestock breeds: Incidence on EU regulations. Dominique PLANCHENAULT. Historical overview. 1. Under regulation 2078/92. The figures for stable populations were 5 000 reproducing females for cattle, 7 500 for sheep and goats.

edda
Download Presentation

FAO categories of risk status for livestock breeds: Incidence on EU regulations.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FAO categories of risk status for livestock breeds: Incidence on EU regulations. Dominique PLANCHENAULT

  2. Historicaloverview 1 Under regulation 2078/92. • The figuresfor stable populationswere 5 000 reproducing females for cattle, 7 500 for sheep and goats. • The figuresfor decreasing populationswere 7 500 reproducing females for cattle, 9 000 for sheep and goats. • The figuresfor increasing populationswere 4 000 reproducing females for cattle, 6 000 for sheep and goats.

  3. Historicaloverview 2 Under regulation 2078/92. • On this base the breeds were selected : 149 for cattle 246 for sheep 72 for goats • In 1994, STAR committee added the list of equidae with the criteria of less than 3 000 reproducing females.

  4. Historicaloverview 3 Application until 1999. • Some difficulties with regards to the determination of the number of breeding females animal’s non-registered on a herd book, the lack of data, the detection of some rare breeds with no genealogical book. • No criteria were set for pigs and no list elaborated. • Three countries (Austria, Finland, Sweden) have been omitted from original survey.

  5. Historicaloverview 4 New application regulation 1750/99. • Council regulation 1257/99 gives the possibilities of support to genetic diversity, amends and repeals regulation 2078/92 – application regulation 1750/99. • Support for rearing farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of extinction (Art 13). • Evidence should be given of the endangered statue of the breed consistent with scientific data accepted by international organisation regarded authorities in the field (annex VI A). • The Commission services have asked the Member States to base their assessment of the breeds on the FAO list of endangered species. Therefore, the list presented by the members states are limited to the FAO definition and list of endangered species.

  6. Number of breeding females Not at risk Endangered Critical 1000 100 Historicaloverview 5 FAO criteria for breeds at risk. • Categorization based on overall population size, number of breeding females or males and the population trends (increasing, stable, decreasing). • Number of breeding females remains the most used factor. • The criteria adopted by FAO limits the categories of livestock breed in danger of extinction to 1 000 females for all species.

  7. Historicaloverview 6 Following the 6th NCs workshop. • The members States underline: • General criteria for global level identification of breeds at risk for use in preparing the WWL for Domestic Animal Diversity. • For developing and implementing conservation plans and programmes for developing and developed countries. • No formal review and evaluation of these criteria. • A criteria for use in particular incentive systems remain to be developed. • The members States propose to the Commission: • To recognize the NCs’ group, as an ad hoc group of international experts. • To be able to receive the scientific support of EAAP WG-AnGR. • To be able to provide the necessary data before the end of 2000.

  8. 2000 - 2001 1 ERFP and EAAP activities. • Brussels meeting – 6/11/2000. • Preparatory meeting one day before. NCs global agreement. • As “scientific authority” Committee of the Health and Animal Welfare. • The Members States express their disapproval. • ERFP asks WG-AnGR to develop a new criterion (12/2000). • No news from European Commission (01/2001). • Old criteria are maintained until the end of 2001 (03/2001). • ERFP asks NCs to take part in a live Internet chat (06/2001). • ERFP and EAAP jointly organise a one-day meeting (26/06/2001).

  9. Case study in France 1 Under regulation 2078/92. Bleue du Nord Salers SaintNectaire Vosgienne Tarentaise Bazadaise Camargue Ferrandaise Bretonne Pie Noire Flamande Mirandaise Nantaise Villards de Lans Maraîchine Froment du Léon Lourdaise Béarnaise Armoricaine Aures et St Girons Bordelaise

  10. Case study in France 2 FAO criteria (1000 breeding females). Bleue du Nord Salers SaintNectaire Vosgienne Tarentaise Bazadaise Camargue Ferrandaise Bretonne Pie Noire Flamande Mirandaise Nantaise Villards de Lans Maraîchine Froment du Léon Lourdaise Béarnaise Armoricaine Aures et St Girons Bordelaise Saônoise

  11. Case study in France 3 EAAP proposal (1000 breeding females). Bleue du Nord Salers SaintNectaire Vosgienne Tarentaise Bazadaise Camargue Ferrandaise Bretonne Pie Noire Flamande Mirandaise Nantaise Villards de Lans Maraîchine Froment du Léon Lourdaise Béarnaise Armoricaine Aures et St Girons Bordelaise Saônoise Maine Anjou Lait Marine Landaise Betizu Massanaise Espagnol Brava

  12. I thank you for your attention.

More Related