Relevant Matter
Public policy or programme
Public Policy Area
EU Affairs
Period
1 Jan, 2026 to 30 Apr, 2026
Specific Details
Amendment of Article 55 of the EU Commission Regulation 202/687
Intended results
To highlight that current EU practice works – without added risk. For many years and in case of HPAI outbreaks, competent authorities across the EU have applied a clear and effective sequence
1. Preliminary C&D and immediate disease control measures;
2. Surveillance and restrictions in protection and surveillance zones;
3. Lifting of measures based on risk assessment, once surveillance confirms no further spread;
4. Final C&D at a later stage, when technically and logistically feasible.
To emphasise that this risk-based practice has been applied for many years without any known case of re-infection of a zone due to measures being lifted before final C&D, once the competent authority had confirmed that the risk of spread was negligible. The current system is effective and science based. It protects animal health and trade confidence without unnecessary prolongation of restrictions.
That requiring final C&D before lifting measures is disproportionate and harmful.
To highlight that linking the lifting of surveillance-zone measures to the completion of final C&D would have serious, unjustified consequences
Prolonged disruption for an indefinite period - Final C&D is rarely immediate. It is often very late, and in many cases can take up to six months or more after an outbreak. Tying the lifting of measures to final C&D would risk keeping whole zones under restrictions for months or increase the administrative burden due to the series of exemptions requests, long after surveillance has shown that the virus is no longer present and without any defined date for planning and logistics.
Negative animal welfare impacts - Extended restrictions mean animals cannot move according to normal production flows. This can lead to overstocking, lack of space, management difficulties and increased stress, with a clear risk of worsening welfare outcomes or culling the flocks. Prolonging measures beyond what risk assessment justifies would therefore harm animal welfare without any additional health benefit.
No proven safety gain, but more pressure on C&D - Once preliminary C&D, surveillance and risk assessment have confirmed negligible risk, further waiting for final C&D does not improve safety. Instead, making final C&D a regulatory trigger creates strong pressure to rush these operations in order to unlock the zone. Final C&D is a complex process that must be done carefully and thoroughly.
If it is brought forward or hurried purely for regulatory reasons, there is a real risk that the quality and effectiveness of C&D will be compromised, which is counter-productive for biosecurity.
Delay driven by costs and logistics, not lack of care - Final C&D is generally delayed due to costs, availability of specialised contractors, insurance and compensation procedures, and farm reorganisation. Penalising the whole surveillance zone for these practical constraints would be unfair and ineffective.
To stress that the approach must remain strictly risk-based.
That decisions on lifting surveillance-zone measures should remain firmly in the hands of competent authorities, based on
a) the epidemiological situation,
b) surveillance results
c) the effectiveness of preliminary C&D and biosecurity, and
d) a documented conclusion that the risk of further spread is negligible.
To, therefore oppose any automatic link between lifting measures and completion of final C&D. Such rigidity is not proportionate, not science-based and not aligned with proven EU practice, including the absence of any known re-infection of zones under the current system.
To call on the Commission to
Reconsider the proposed change to Article 55 and reopen the discussion with Member States and stakeholders.
Maintain a strictly risk-based route allowing competent authorities to lift surveillance-zone measures once conditions and risk assessment are fulfilled.
Avoid making completion of final C&D a pre-condition for lifting measures, while keeping final C&D as an important, but separate, requirement.
Ensure that any revision does not worsen animal welfare or undermine the quality of final C&D by creating regulatory pressure to rush these operations.
Name of person primarily responsible for lobbying on this activity
Francie Gorman IFA President, Michael Caffrey IFA Pig & Pigmeat Chair, Sarah Hanley IFA Policy Executive, Noel Banville IFA European Policy Executive
Did any Designated Public Official(DPO) or former Designated Public Official(DPO) carry out lobbying activities on your behalf in relation to this return? You must include yourself, and answer Yes, if you are a current DPO or a DPO at any time in the past. (What is a Designated Public Official?)
No
Did you manage or direct a grassroots campaign?
No
Was this lobbying done on behalf of a client?
No
Lobbying activity
The following activities occurred for this specific Subject Matter Area.
Informal communication (2-5)
Designated public officials lobbied
The following DPOs were lobbied during this return period on this specific Subject Matter Area. These DPOs were involved in at least one of the Lobbying Activities listed above, but not necessarily all of them.
As returns are specific to a Subject Matter Area the above Lobbying Activities may be associated with multiple returns.
Barry Cowen
MEP (European Parliament)
Ciaran Mullooly
MEP (European Parliament)
Maria Walsh
MEP (European Parliament)