REPORT on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

23.11.2006 - (COM(2006)0273 – C6‑0199/2006 – 2006/0098(CNS)) - *

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Ilda Figueiredo

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

(COM(2006)0273 – C6‑0199/2006 – 2006/0098(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0273)[1],

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0199/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6‑0409/2006),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls for initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;  

5.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

6.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 8 A (new)
	(8a) Little is known about what has occurred with programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases in the various Member States.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 8 B (new)
	(8b) There are different attitudes to and ways of dealing with the same diseases in various Member States, even neighbouring Member States, and this may affect the efficiency of the measures taken.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 8 C (new)
	(8c) Particular attention should be paid to emergency situations, which require the sudden and unforeseeable disbursement of very large financial resources.
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 16, point a a (new) (Decision 90/424/EC)
	(aa) Support for actions to disseminate good practices and encourage the submission of joint programmes by two or more Member States and border regions, wherever this is shown to be important for the prevention, control, monitoring and eradication of contagious animal diseases, including zoonoses;
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 Article 24, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 (Decision 90/424/EC)
The list in the Annex may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 41, in particular with regard to emerging animal diseases which pose a risk for animal health and, indirectly, to public health.	The list in the Annex may be updated only after the European Parliament and the Council have given their opinion on the matter. In exceptional cases it may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 41, provided that the amendment relates to emerging animal diseases which pose a risk for animal health and, indirectly, to public health.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 Article 24, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 a (Decision 90/424/EC)
	However, each Member State may, depending on its specific circumstances, submit national programmes, which shall be co-financed by the EU, for the eradication, control and monitoring of contagious animal diseases and zoonoses.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 Article 24, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1 (Decision 90/424/EC)
Each year, by 31 March at the latest, Member States shall submit to the Commission the annual or multi-annual programmes starting in the following year for which they wish to receive a financial contribution from the Community.	Each year, by 30 April at the latest, Member States shall submit to the Commission the annual or multi-annual programmes starting in the following year for which they wish to receive a financial contribution from the Community.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 1, POINT 4 Article 24, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 (Decision 90/424/EC)
Programmes submitted after 31 March shall not be eligible for financing the following year	Programmes submitted after 30 April shall not be eligible for financing the following year.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 Article 26, paragraph 1 a (new) (Decision 90/424/EC)
	Emergency situations requiring the sudden and unforeseeable disbursement of very large financial resources shall always be accepted and shall not be subject to the deadlines referred to in this Decision.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 A (new) Article 43 a (new) (Decision 90/424/EC)
	(7a) Article 43a is replaced by the following:   “Article 43a   Every four years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the animal health situation and the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of programmes in the various Member States, including details of the criteria adopted.”
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 2
Council Decision 90/638/EEC is repealed from the date of taking effect of the Decision laying down the criteria referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC and the detailed rules referred to in Article 24(10) of that Decision.	Council Decision 90/638/EEC is repealed from the date of taking effect of the Decision laying down the criteria referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC and the detailed rules referred to in Article 24(10) of that Decision, without prejudice to the maintenance of the procedure laid down in Article 41 of Decision 90/424/EEC and to the European Parliament's opinion being sought in the event of any amendment to the criteria currently in force.
Amendment 12 ANNEX, INDENTS 20 A TO 20 H (new)
	- Bovine leucosis - Newcastle disease - Aujeszky's disease - Swine brucellosis - BHV1 - Maedi/Visna - Paratuberculosis - Mycoplasma gallisepticum

• [1]  OJ C .../ Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I - Commission proposal

The Commission explicitly states that its intention in this proposal is not to make any change to the policy on the 'eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses', but simply to update some of the instruments that accompany Community policy on animal health. The Commission has since announced that it will shortly be submitting a full report on animal health policy so that an overall assessment might then be made with a possible view to more far-reaching changes to the legislation in force. For the time being, given the entry into force of the new financial framework, the Commission is stressing the need for certain immediate changes to specific aspects in order to improve the procedures.

It highlights three amendments to Council Decision 90/424/EEC:

-          changing the procedures for the Community financing of national programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases as regards certain expenditure in the veterinary field;

-          introducing the possibility for the Community to approve and finance multi-annual eradication, control and monitoring programmes for animal diseases and zoonoses, with a proposed amendment to Article 24;

-          updating the scope of the current financial measures aimed at improving information policy in the fields of animal health and the safety of food products of animal origin, firstly by using the integrated computerised veterinary systems Traces (system for monitoring the movement of live animals and monitoring of imports into the European Union), amending Article 37a to take into account the technical adjustment of the Animo system and its integration into the new Traces system, and secondly by amending Article 16 to extend the scope of information policy.

It should be pointed out that amendments have also been made to the annex to the above Decision on contagious animal diseases, with the current list of 23 endemic animal diseases and 8 zoonoses or epizootics for which Community financial support may be granted being reduced to 20.

In order to simplify the legislation in force, the Commission is also proposing the repeal of Council Decision 90/638/EEC laying down Community criteria for the eradication and monitoring of certain animal diseases, replacing those criteria with fresh technical criteria set out in the annexes to the new decision currently under review, which the Commission intends subsequently to transform into criteria and standard requirements for the content of programmes through a Commission decision, which could then be amended as the Commission sees fit without Parliament’s involvement.

II - Rapporteur’s assessment and amendments

There are some positive aspects to this Commission proposal, particularly as regards the possibility for approving multiannual programmes, even though this development is of course inevitable given the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of 29 April 2004 (Article 41), whose timescale for implementation in this context will be 2008. It might therefore appear likely that the current amending proposal will be in force for only one year. There is therefore some doubt as to the best way to proceed: to amend Decision 90/424/EEC or to prepare for the application of Regulation No 882/2004, which would appear to be highly complex?

Expanding the eligibility of expenditure in the field of (computerised) information systems is essentially a reasonable measure. Monitoring the movement of live animals (intra-Community trade) is a key tool in preventing the introduction of new contagious diseases to a particular territory. A European database installed on a server with sufficient capacity so that it can be used by all European operators simultaneously (Traces system) would be a highly useful resource for controlling the spread of diseases. According to experts, the current Traces system has many technical limitations: it is slow; it lacks statistical modules; it has no automatic filter to prevent movements of animals between areas subject to sanitary restrictions and restriction-free areas.

This is a pressing problem and there are clearly shortcomings. It is therefore urgent to find a source of financing to allow the proper development of the Traces system. However, this source of funding could be found in a context separate from this decision.

Moreover, expanding the scope of Decision 90/424/EEC to include 'food safety in products of animal origin' and 'information policy in the field of animal protection' in the context of drawing up a decision amending another (earlier) decision which exclusively concerned support for expenditure incurred in combating contagious animal diseases amounts to a total transformation of the spirit of the original decision (90/424/EEC).

In fact, the scope of Decision 90/424/EEC related exclusively to the financial support granted to countries affected by contagious diseases with serious repercussions on animal production. In a context of transition, it does not appear justified to distort the original spirit of the legislation. The new rules on eligible expenditure turn the already complex legislation into an even more cumbersome bureaucratic process.

The issues of ‘animal welfare’ and ‘food safety’ are indeed important, but not in the context of combating contagious animal diseases. There are some contagious animal diseases which are transmitted through food (brucellosis, tuberculosis, salmonellosis and colibacillosis), but the spirit behind the financing of measures to combat animal diseases was above all to help minimise the damage suffered by farmers when their animals must be destroyed because they are suffering from a disease which can be easily spread. It is clear that, indirectly, this also provides guarantees with regard to food safety, but only as a secondary intention. Furthermore, there are specific programmes to support animal protection measures and measures to promote health and safety in food.

Compensatory aid linked to issues of ‘animal welfare’ and ‘food safety’ should therefore be withdrawn from this proposal amending Decision 90/424/EEC. There is no definition of the criteria according to which the list of eligible diseases contained in the annex can be altered, particularly with regard to the application of the concept ‘emerging animal diseases'. If, for example, there is a sudden outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a Member State, will this be considered an emerging disease or not? It might be considered an emerging disease given that the disease does not currently exist in the EU, but outbreaks have occurred in all the Member States in the past hundred years. This extremely serious disease is not mentioned in the annex.

There is no definition of the conditions to be met by diseases or countries so that multiannual or annual plans can be submitted. In what circumstances are one or the other to be submitted?

Particular emphasis should be placed on emergency situations, which require the sudden and unforeseeable disbursement of very large financial resources. One example is the outbreak of foot‑and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2000. For diseases of this kind, the sooner measures are imposed and the more radical they are, the more effective they will be. For this to be possible, a minimum financial reserve needs to be set up to respond to disasters which arise suddenly, insidiously and unforeseeably.

The list of contagious animal diseases set out in the annex differs from that in the original decision. The following have been withdrawn: foot-and-mouth disease, bovine leucosis, horse sickness, Aujeszky’s disease, Newcastle disease and Teschen disease.

At least three of these diseases which have been withdrawn are significant for Portugal. Bovine leucosis is a disease for which eradication programmes have been running for around 20 years, and it is now in the final stage of definitive eradication. Very few cases of leucosis were detected in Portugal last year, and it is estimated that the disease can be definitively eradicated in one year’s time. Making the disease ineligible for funding could compromise all the efforts made and lead to its uncontrolled resurgence.

Newcastle disease is endemic among wild birds in Portugal, and could be transmitted to unvaccinated poultry at any time. The economic consequences of this disease for poultry farming are devastating.

Aujeszky’s disease in pigs, which has now been excluded, is also the subject of a planned programme for Portugal, where failure to eradicate the disease means that it is impossible to export pigs to some markets (EU and third countries).

Swine brucellosis is another disease not included in the current list which may pose the same type of problems for trade and is endemic in Portugal and the Mediterranean basin. For example, the sale of pigs of the Alentejana breed (an important source of income in that region) could be affected by the lack of a monitoring or eradication programme.

On the other hand, the proposal adds certain new diseases, particularly zoonotic diseases (salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and listeriosis). Campylobacteriosis is a very common disease among humans in northern Europe but does not occur to any significant extent in the south. Most livestock species are healthy carriers of the agent which causes this disease among humans, and it is not possible to design any control or eradication programme for animals.

Given this scenario, it appears to us that the list was drawn up in such a way as to take account of interests that do not fully coincide with those of southern countries. This makes it unbalanced at the very least. The list could be reduced to the diseases common to all the Member States, allowing for a degree of flexibility to take account of more regional health problems or those specific to each country.

There are a number of other concerns which should be borne in mind, namely:

-          the lack of knowledge about what has occurred with the programmes for the eradication, control and monitoring of certain animal diseases in the various Member States, which means that a regular report is needed on the situation and the cost-effectiveness of the corresponding programmes;

-          the different attitudes to the same diseases in various Member States, even in some neighbouring states, which may pose an obstacle to improving the situation or eradicating a disease, as stressed by the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE). Taking the case of classical swine fever as an example, where countries such as Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia submitted a programme and requested support for the eradication of the disease but Poland did not, the FVE questions the effectiveness of such programmes, given that it is well known that this animal disease may be transmitted by wild animals which evidently do not recognise borders;

-          the heterogeneous nature of programmes which may also fail to take account of the needs of neighbouring countries:

-          information for stock farmers on their own farms, which may help restrict the spread of animal diseases, but with an increase in the funds available, given that the current funding makes this difficult;

-          the deadline laid down for submitting programmes (31 March) will be difficult to meet. The date in the original decision should be maintained - 31 May;

-          the need to keep Parliament informed of developments in the situation, and the need for a fresh decision if any changes are made to the criteria laid down in the annexes to the present decision;

-          a clarification of the terms used in the various language versions, employing only the phrase which we consider to be most correct: ‘contagious animal diseases, including zoonoses’, given that all zoonoses are contagious animal and human diseases and this decision applies only to contagious animal diseases with a serious public-health and economic impact.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field
References	COM(2006)0273 – C6‑0199/2006 – 2006/0098(CNS)
Date of consulting Parliament	22.6.2006
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	AGRI 4.7.2006
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	BUDG 4.7.2006		ENVI 4.7.2006
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision	BUDG 5.7.2006		ENVI 14.6.2006
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Ilda Figueiredo 21.6.2006
Discussed in committee	2.10.2006		22.11.20060
Date adopted	22.11.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	30 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Vincenzo Aita, Thijs Berman, Giuseppe Castiglione, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Esther Herranz García, Gábor Harangozó, Heinz Kindermann, Albert Jan Maat, Diamanto Manolakou, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, María Isabel Salinas García, Brian Simpson, Witold Tomczak, Kyösti Virrankoski, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Pilar Ayuso, Bernadette Bourzai, Ilda Figueiredo, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Jan Mulder
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled	23.11.2006
Comments (available in one language only)	...