REPORT on a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013)

11.4.2008 - (2007/2260(INI))

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Janusz Wojciechowski

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013)

(2007/2260(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication on a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013) where "Prevention is better than cure" (COM(2007)0539) and the Commission staff working documents (Impact Assessment and Summary of the Impact Assessment) accompanying that communication (SEC(2007)1189 and SEC(2007)1190) ("Animal Health Strategy Communication"),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A6‑0147/2008),

A.  whereas animal health is closely linked to human health, owing to the possibility of direct or indirect transmission of certain diseases,

B.  whereas animal health is important in economic terms because animal diseases lower animal production and lead to animal death, necessary culling and consequential economic loss,

C.  whereas animals are living, sentient beings and their protection and correct treatment is one of the challenges for a cultured and civilised 21st-Century Europe,

D. whereas major outbreaks of animal disease can often result in social dislocation and social problems in rural areas,

E.  whereas animal welfare is one factor, but not the only one, which contributes to animal health and is justified on ethical, social and economic grounds and must be based on solid scientific foundations,

F.  whereas trade is becoming increasingly globalised and the trade in animal products is on the increase, both within the EU and internationally,

G. whereas there is a need for coordinated cooperation on animal health issues at EU and global level,

H. whereas the effectiveness of action on animal health depends not only on the administrative measures taken but also on informed and committed cooperation between all stakeholders,

I.   whereas the best means of combating animal diseases is to prevent them from occurring in the first place, in accordance with the principles that 'prevention is better than cure' and 'cure is better than unnecessary culling',

J.   whereas there is no difference between the quality of products derived from (emergency) vaccinated animals and products derived from unvaccinated animals, but markets in and outside the EU may not accept products derived from (emergency) vaccinated animals and livestock farmers and other operators need sufficient guarantees that markets would be ready to receive those products without price cuts, 

K.  whereas more open borders and increased global demand for food, global trade, global mobility of persons, global warming and illegal trade lead to increased animal health risks,

1.  Welcomes the development of a strategic approach to EU animal health policy and supports the overall aims, objectives and principles set out in the Animal Health Strategy Communication, which will enable the EU to reinforce its protection mechanisms and preparedness in the face of the onset of new epizootic diseases;

2.  Invites the Commission to present an action plan, as envisaged in its Animal Health Strategy Communication;

3.  Alerts the Council and the Commission to the fact that it is impossible to comply with the 2007-2013 time frame laid down in Animal Health Strategy Communication given that the discussions relating to the Communication are still on‑going and the basic legislation required for its implementation will not be in place until 2010 at the earliest;

4.  Calls, in this respect, for greater ambition and for a longer-term view from the Commission when bringing forward its legislative proposals, which will enable benefits to be derived from other coming discussions that will affect the EU’s budgetary resources and political priorities in the future;

5.  Approves the expressed desire to build the new strategy/policy on a single legal framework for animal health in the EU that takes due account of the standards and guidelines of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE);

6.  Stresses that farmers, breeders and owners play an essential role in monitoring, maintaining and promoting the health of farm animals and in the prevention and detection of disease;

7.  Emphasises the importance of the role to be played by the veterinary and the farming profession, which should be at the forefront of the development and delivery of specialised and proactive services such as animal health planning; expresses its concerns about veterinary coverage of certain rural areas in the EU;

8.  Emphasises, further, the role of humans in the spread of animal diseases as a result of increasing mobility;

9.  Agrees with the animal health strategy objective of investing more in preventive measures and a control system, thereby reducing the likelihood of disease breaking out; agrees with the principle that 'prevention is better than cure';

10. Underlines that there is no difference between goods produced from vaccinated animals and those produced from non-vaccinated animals;

11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that products from vaccinated animals (protective vaccination) can be marketed throughout the internal market;

12. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the acceptance of products from vaccinated animals at an international level;

13. Endorses the vision and purpose set out in the Commission's Animal Health Strategy Communication, under which 'extensive stakeholder consultation' and 'a firm commitment to high standards of animal health' will facilitate both the establishment of priorities consistent with the strategic goals and a review of what constitute acceptable and appropriate standards;

14. Welcomes the recognition in the Animal Health Strategy Communication of the crucial relationship between the health of animals and their welfare, and expects to see both matters interlinked in the upcoming policy;

15. Welcomes the fact that the strategy covers the health of all animals in the EU so that feral pets, which are not expressly referred to, are also covered if there is a risk that they may transmit diseases to other animals or to humans;

16. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to adopt a communication strategy on risk, managed by stakeholders and consumers; points out that although Europe’s livestock production is safer than ever and subject to rigorous checks, the public's perception of the sector is far from satisfactory, which, in the case of some recent crises, has already created problems for the market owing to a loss of confidence;

17. Endorses the target population identified and addressed in the Commission's Animal Health Strategy Communication: animal owners, members of the veterinary profession, representatives of the zooengineering profession, food chain businesses, animal health industries, animal interest groups, researchers and teachers, governing bodies of sport and recreational organisations, educational facilities, consumers, travellers, competent authorities of Member States and the EU institutions;

18. Points out that the animal health strategy should also cover the activities of abattoirs, animal transport businesses and animal feed manufacturers and suppliers, while taking account of administrative simplification;

19. Points out that the animal health strategy with its preventive approach should develop the necessary legal and financial measures both to monitor pets and stray animals and to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases and animal health problems; in particular, the strategy should include vaccination programmes and other preventive measures in connection with diseases transmitted by stray dogs and cats, especially where no vaccination is currently possible; urges the Commission to assess the economic and social consequences that may arise from the spread of zoonotic diseases and the mobility of people and their pets;

20. Points out that the proposed strategy can produce positive results if clear and transparent arrangements are laid down for the funding of the individual measures, something that the Commission Communication fails to do; criticises the Commission for making no reference to the funding requirements for its policy in its Communication;

21. Underlines, with a view to ensuring a level playing field, the need to clarify the role of the EU, Member States and the agricultural sector in financing animal health measures such as ensuring biological security on farms, vaccination programmes, scientific research or higher animal welfare standards, and calls on the Commission to clarify those issues in its animal health strategy;

22. Draws attention to the fact that the common animal health policy is one of the most integrated EU policies and that most of its funding should be covered by the Community budget, which should not preclude the financial responsibility of the Member States and farmers;

23. Acknowledges that markets inside and outside the EU are nonetheless not always willing to import vaccinated and protected meat; stresses that livestock farmers and other market operators require guarantees that they will be able to sell their products without price reductions; regards this as a crucial issue which the Community must resolve quickly in order to guarantee the free movement of goods;

24. Points to the growing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in several animal farming sectors, which can also lead to problems in respect of public health; urges the Commission, therefore, to present an analysis regarding this problem, where necessary, accompanied by proposals within the framework of the animal health strategy;

25. Voices its dissatisfaction at the indications that individual measures will be financed from existing funds and calls on the Commission to advocate enhancing the possibilities of the current veterinary fund, preparing its arguments for the budget discussions that will launched in 2009;

26. Points to the importance of EU-wide coordination of animal health measures and calls on the Commission to play a more active coordinating role than it has done hitherto;

27. Draws attention to growing animal health risks as a consequence of increasing global mobility, rising demand for food, growing international trade and climate change; and underlines the need for an adequate emergency vaccination strategy for both existing and emerging diseases;

Pillar 1 – Prioritisation of EU intervention

28. Acknowledges the crucial importance of risk profiling and categorisation, including the determination of an acceptable level of risk for the Community and of the relative priority for action to reduce the risk; believes that efforts must be made to define clearly the situations in which the risk of disease is heightened and exceeds the acceptable level, as well as the consequences thereof;

29. Points out that high stocking densities in intensive farming systems may increase the risk of disease spread and hamper disease control where inadequate disease control measures are practised;

30. Points to the importance, in terms of controlling epidemic diseases, of the distance between farms;

31. Acknowledges that the EU has in place strict regulations on animal transport, which meet the need for high animal welfare standards and disease prevention and control measures; urges that those high standards be fully implemented by all Member States; believes that the standards should be met by countries exporting animal products to the EU in order to promote and ensure high standards of animal welfare and health globally; points to the potentially heightened risks involved in long-distance transport of live animals, which has the potential to spread disease and which hampers disease control measures where inadequate disease prevention measures are practised;

32. Believes that it is also necessary to take into consideration the fact that globalisation, climate change and the movement of people are factors favouring the spread of animal disease, which makes controlling them more difficult;

33. Stresses the need for a coherent communication strategy in regard to the new animal health strategy, which should involve close cooperation among all stakeholders organisations at EU, national and local level;

Pillar 2 – EU legal framework

34. Shares the view that the current EU animal health framework is complicated and fragmented and hence needs to be simplified; takes the view that the fundamental rules governing action on animal health should, where possible, be set out in a single legislative act;

35 Stresses, furthermore, that the replacement of the current set of inter-linked and inter-dependent policy measures with a single legal framework that take particular account of the recommendations, standards and guidelines of the OIE and the WHO/FAO Codex Alimentarius, should be a central plank of the strategy, without disregarding European rules such as transparency and the involvement of all stakeholders, while avoiding any deterioration in health status in the EU;

36. Agrees that there is a need to ensure that unjustified national or regional animal health rules do not constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market, and, in particular, that the resources deployed in response to the outbreak of disease are proportional to the threat posed and are not used for unjustified trade discrimination purposes, especially with regard to products derived from vaccinated animals;

37. Takes the view that the EU legal framework should clearly, and in an appropriately flexible manner, lay down the obligations of owners of animals, including animals kept for non-commercial purposes, in risk situations, in such a way as not to give rise to unwarranted conflicts and disputes; believes that curbing diseases among wild animals is also a significant element of the preventive strategy;

38. Agrees with the conclusions of the Pre-feasibility study of 25 July 2006 on options for harmonised cost-sharing schemes for epidemic livestock diseases, conducted by Civic Consulting (in the context of the Evaluation of the Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP) 1995-2004 and alternatives for the future, prepared on behalf of the Commission), which called for the harmonisation of the cost-sharing systems established by Member States; notes, furthermore, that since cost sharing goes hand-in-hand with the sharing of responsibility, such systems require the full participation and commitment of all parties including animal owners, and that new mechanisms should be introduced to involve stakeholders in decision-making on significant policy issues;

39. Acknowledges the need to revise the current co-financing instrument, so that it is possible to ensure that all the players assume their responsibilities and play a part in detecting and eradicating disease; notes that compensation funds for animal owners based on a reserve system strengthen individual and shared responsibility;

40. Fully shares the view that the compensation system should not be limited to providing compensation to owners of animals that are culled in response to the outbreak of disease, but should be combined with risk-prevention incentives, on the basis of reduction of contributions by farmers to national or regional animal health funds, in case they take extra risk reducing measures, which would also include promoting the use of (emergency) vaccination instead of stamping out, acknowledging that this would constitute income guarantees for the owner of the (emergency) vaccinated livestock; takes the view that the same principle should also apply to Member States, as an incentive to reduce risk levels;

41  Calls on the Commission to carry out a comparative analysis of existing compensation systems in the Member States and on that basis to draw up an EU-wide framework model; calls on the Commission to create a legal framework for an efficient cost-sharing scheme in the Member States in order to ensure that the direct costs for eradicating an animal disease are also co-financed by the sector;

42. Indicates the need for a substantial Community contribution in respect of those major diseases, in order to ensure equal treatment and opportunities where these are beyond the resources of the countries and producers concerned;

43. Welcomes the Commission's undertaking to submit a report setting out the possibilities for an effective system of financial guarantees for feed business operators;

44. Agrees that provision should be made in the EU legal framework for support for the possibility of covering indirect losses not resulting from disease-eradication measures alone; points out that indirect losses can, in some cases, be more severe than direct losses and that provision should therefore be made for compensation for such losses; expresses its support, therefore, for more research into and Community support for the establishment of national insurance instruments by livestock farmers; notes, however, that private insurance might be a more efficient instrument for dealing with such losses in certain cases;

45. Stresses that EU legislation is already based to a significant extent on compliance with OIE/Codex standards and that there is good reason to strive fully to comply with those standards and for the EU to promote its own animal health standards with a view to their adoption at international level; supports therefore, with a view to increase the EU's negotiating power within the OIE, a possible EU membership of the OIE; stresses, furthermore, the importance of safeguarding the input of stakeholders at OIE/Codex level;

46. Urges the EU to defend its high animal health and welfare standards at international level within the WTO, in order to increase animal health and welfare standards globally; acknowledges that EU producers face higher costs due to the higher EU standards in place and that they must be protected from imported animal products produced subject to lower standards;

47. Welcomes the proposed steps towards an export strategy at Community level and stresses that the Commission should make every effort to improve access to third-country markets and remove export barriers;

Pillar 3 – Animal-related threat prevention, surveillance and crisis preparedness

48. Acknowledges the need to promote on-farm biosecurity measures; considers that measures such as the isolation of new animals brought to farms, the isolation of sick animals, and regulating the movement of people can have a major impact in restricting the spread of disease;

49. Points out that keeping animals in the open is a defining feature of various production systems and is still particularly frequent in certain regions and for certain species; recognises that that practice is supported by the public and with public funds; points out that the practice may contradict the aims of biosecurity; takes the view that farmers should receive support from society in insuring against the higher risk for animal health associated with these types of livestock farming, and that the political objectives in the areas of animal health and animal protection should be aligned;

50. Points out that training for farm managers and staff working on farms is crucial for animal welfare and animal health; is in favour, therefore, of supporting training and further training measures;

51. Awaits the recognition of quality management systems for the categorisation of risk associated with different types of production systems; is convinced that stock-farming systems that are preferred by consumers and that pose certain problems with respect to biosecurity (free-range farming) can be made safer through appropriate management;

52. Believes that tracing products, on the basis of identification and registration, is particularly important in animal health monitoring and disease prevention and food safety; supports, in this connection, action covering the compulsory electronic and DNA-based genetic identification and registration of animals at EU-Level and the introduction of a comprehensive and secure animal movement monitoring system, but draws attention to the cost of such a system, particularly for farms working with economically unfavourable farm structures; calls on the Commission to help farmers cope with the high costs incurred through the procurement of the required equipment, by creating the possibility for Member States to incorporate such measures within their rural development programmes;

53. Points to the large differences among Member States in the amount of bovine animals destroyed as a result of non-compliance with the EU rules on identification and registration; awaits the explanation of the Commission for these differences within the EU;

54. Shares the view that better border biosecurity is particularly important in view of the fact that the EU is the world's largest importer of food, including animal products; considers that, in view of the risk of infection-carrying or diseased animals being brought into the EU, veterinary and sanitary checks at EU borders need to be particularly thorough and stringent and should not be restricted simply to checking documents but should also make it possible to ascertain whether animals have been reared in accordance with animal welfare standards laid down in EU legislation;

55. Stresses the importance of animal health inspections within third countries and asks for an increase in the financial resources of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office;

56. Takes the view that veterinary and customs controls at EU borders should be particularly rigorous with a view to preventing the illegal importation of or trafficking in animals and animal products, given the major risk of spreading disease that they entail; draws attention, in this connection, to the need for organisational, training and financial assistance to be provided to veterinary services at the EU's external borders, including its maritime borders, in particular in the new Member States, third countries neighbouring the EU, and developing countries;

57. Calls on the Council and the Commission to establish mechanisms to ensure better coordination between customs services, veterinary services and tour operators, in order to facilitate cooperation between Member States at EU level and with third countries;

58. Calls on the Commission to step up significantly its cooperation with developing countries in providing them with technical assistance, on the one hand to help them to meet our sanitary standards and on the other hand to reduce the risk of spreading of animal diseases from these countries to the EU; believes that in veterinary cooperation with third countries priority should be given to countries bordering the Member States;

59. Stresses the importance of veterinary surveillance in crisis situations and their prevention, as regards providing early warning and the prompt detection of animal-related threats; calls on the Commission, in this context, to examine the possible introduction of a system of farm audits for farms that are not regularly visited by veterinary professionals;

60. Stresses the need for economic operators, members of the veterinary profession and their assistants, control bodies and other competent authorities to be provided with effective training to enable them to detect animal-related threats promptly and for an update of EU minimum standards on veterinary training, support for such training at EU level, together with measures to ensure their implementation, the alignment, as swiftly as possible, of school and university programmes in this field; suggests, in this regard, that a European accreditation system of veterinary schools could help achieving the objective of a high-level veterinary education;

61. Strongly supports action to increase the use of (both suppressive and protective) emergency vaccinations, which should foster more effective disease prevention and containment as part of disease-eradication operations; draws attention to the fact that the introduction of an effective vaccination system requires income guarantees for owners of vaccinated animals since they may face problems selling products from vaccinated animals, the provision of appropriate financial support, in order to encourage its use, and ensure that products from vaccinated animals are not subject to any restrictions; considers it essential, furthermore, for EU vaccine banks to be expanded; also considers it necessary to apply all measures that can help to reduce the number of healthy animals slaughtered and disposed of, such as tests to prove that animals are free from pathogens, thus making normal slaughter possible;

62. Supports the development of vaccination strategies for all relevant species and diseases;

63. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take a selection of measures in order to ensure the indiscriminate circulation of products derived from vaccinated animals, the absence of which has, to date, placed a major brake on the use of vaccination as a tool in combating the spread of contagious animal diseases; calls, therefore, inter alia, for a ban on consumer labelling of products derived from vaccinated animals, effective public communication strategies regarding the harmlessness of products derived from vaccinated animals and the conclusion of conventions on the free circulation of products derived from vaccinated animals between governments, farmers' organisations, consumer organisations, and retail and trade operators;

64. Takes the view that, in connection with action in response to the threat of a crisis, it is essential to ensure the availability of specialist knowledge and of humane means of carrying out any necessary culling of animals that will spare them unnecessary suffering, in recognition of the fact that they are living, sentient beings;

65. Points out that veterinary medicines and animal vaccines are an element of animal health, and responsibility within the Commission should be reorganised accordingly;

Pillar 4 – Science, Innovation and Research

66. Stresses that scientific research plays an essential role in animal health systems, since it enables advances to be made, in particular in monitoring the diagnosis and control of animal disease, risk analysis, development of vaccines and tests and efficient treatment methods, which must be based on scientific knowledge; recalls, in this context, Parliament's amendment to the 2008 EU budget, increasing appropriations for the development of (marker) vaccines and testing methods; calls on the Commission to make effective use of those increased appropriations;

67. Believes that research into animal health and welfare conducted under the seventh framework research programme and other research conducted at national and EU level contribute to more effective action on animal health;

68. Points to the need for the strengthening of the network of Community and national reference laboratories dealing with animal diseases, highlighting the networks that already exist, and agrees that scientifically uniform test methods, which are 'trade compatible' (validated and accepted by the OIE and third-country trade partners) should be applied;

69. Emphasises the importance of pooling scientific information on animal health and welfare and points to the need for the development of the ERA-NET and ETPGAH information platforms; suggests that the advantages and disadvantages of new and further developed diagnostic methods (e.g. PCR) must be better communicated and used to benefit animals and humans, with a view to both animal protection and the worldwide supply of safe food for people, especially in the newer Member States;

70. Stresses the importance of communicating with consumers in order to ensure that they understand the means by which animal diseases are spread and their enormous impact, and thus their significance, for the supply of safe food;

71. Is concerned that European standards could be undermined by imports from third countries whose farmers do not face the same obligations with regard to animal health and welfare; asks the Commission to investigate ways in which to safeguard against such third-country competition, including consideration of import measures, and by raising the matter for debate in the relevant WTO fora;

72. Considers that the delay in taking measures to ensure that imports of Brazilian beef come only from cattle that are free of foot-and-mouth disease risks undermining public confidence in the EU animal health regime;

73. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the outcome of WTO negotiations does not undermine the ability of European farmers to maintain and enhance animal health and welfare standards; considers that the possibility of subjecting imported products to the same requirements as European products is a major factor in ensuring a balanced outcome to the negotiations;

74. Invites the Commission to ensure that eggs are designated as a sensitive product as an outcome of the WTO negotiations in order to protect the progress made on animal health and welfare in that area of farming;

75. Is concerned about the growing evidence that links the increasing international trade in live birds and poultry products with the development and spread of diseases such as avian flu; asks the Commission to investigate this evidence and bring forward appropriate policy proposals as necessary;

76. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to respect WTO commitments regarding sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures but considers that this should not preclude the possibility - specifically admissible under the SPS agreement - of introducing measures that lead to higher standards of protection where this is sufficiently scientifically justified; considers, in addition, that it is important to encourage the adoption of those measures at the international level in order to ensure upward convergence;

77. Believes that the new generation of Free Trade Agreements with India, Korea and the countries of south-east Asia should have a balanced chapter on SPS measures and animal welfare;

78. Calls on the Commission to integrate animal health and welfare in all its development programmes, in order to achieve consistency with the internal approach and extend the benefits of those policies to partner countries;

79. Urges the Commission to conclude veterinary protocols with potential export markets, such as that of China;

80. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Commission proposal:

The Commission Communication sets out high level aims and objectives to guide the development of animal health policy in the period up to 2013. The strategy covers the health of all animals in the European Union kept for food, farming, research, sport, companionship, entertainment and in zoos, and wild animals where there is a risk of them transmitting disease to other animals or to humans. It also covers the health of animals transported to, from and within the EU.

The specific objectives of the strategy are to;

-          ensure a high level of public health and food safety by minimising the incidence of biological and chemical risks to humans;

-          promote animal health by preventing or reducing the incidence of animal diseases, and in this way to support farming and the rural community;

-          improve economic growth, cohesion and competitiveness, assuring free circulation of good and proportionate animal movements; and

-          promote farming practices and animal welfare which prevent animal health related threats and minimise environmental impacts.

Rapporteur's position:

The strategy put forward in the Commission communication is non-controversial. All the measures put forward are necessary and worthy of support. It is good document which can form a useful basis for action to bring about a genuine improvement in animal health.

This report focuses on a few issues to which the communication fails to pay sufficient attention.

First: funding. This issue is covered in too general a fashion. The proposed measures will give rise to costs and appropriate funding arrangements need to be clearly laid down.

Second: the greater risk posed by large livestock holdings at which industrial breeding methods are used. Animal disease control would be facilitated by restrictions on the size of farms.

Third: animal transport, which always increases the risk of disease and should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Fourth: vaccination. The report strongly supports vaccination as a fundamental means of preventing disease.

To wind up, the proposed strategy is worthy of support and the 'prevention is better than cure' principle to which it refers should underpin all action on animal health.

OPINION of the Committee on International Trade (26.2.2008)

for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

on a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013)
(2007/2260(INI))

Draftsperson: Béla Glattfelder

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on International Trade calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.  Considers that a high level of animal health and welfare within the EU provides a good basis for exports but that unjustified third country sanitary barriers need to be addressed if European farmers are to be able to compete on fair terms;

2.  Is concerned that European standards could be undermined by imports from third countries whose farmers do not face the same obligations with regard to animal health and welfare; asks the Commission to investigate ways to safeguard against this, including consideration of import measures, and by raising this in the relevant WTO fora for debate;

3.  Considers that the delay in taking measures to ensure that imports of Brazilian beef come only from cattle that are free of foot-and-mouth disease risks undermining public confidence in the EU animal health regime;

4.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the outcome of WTO negotiations does not undermine the ability of European farmers to maintain and enhance animal health and welfare standards; considers that the possibility of subjecting imported products to the same requirements as European products is a major factor in ensuring a balanced outcome to the negotiations;

5.  Invites the Commission to ensure eggs are designated as a sensitive product as an outcome of the WTO negotiations in order to protect the progress made on animal health and welfare in this area of farming;

6.  Is concerned about the growing evidence that links the increasing international trade in live birds and poultry products with the development and spread of diseases such as avian flu; asks the Commission to investigate this evidence and bring forward appropriate policy proposals as necessary;

7.  Welcomes the Commission’s intention to respect WTO commitments regarding sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures but considers that this should not preclude the possibility - specifically admissible under the SPS agreement - of introducing measures that lead to higher standards of protection where this is sufficiently scientifically justified; considers in addition that it is important to encourage their international adoption in order to ensure upward convergence;

8.  Believes that the new generation of Free Trade Agreements with India, Korea and the countries of south-east Asia should have a balanced chapter on SPS measures and animal welfare;

9.  Calls on the Commission to integrate animal health and welfare in all its development programmes, in order to achieve consistency with the internal approach and extend the benefits of these policies to partner countries;

10. Urges the Commission to conclude veterinary protocols with potential export markets, such as China's.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	26.2.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	13
Members present for the final vote	Francisco Assis, Daniel Caspary, Christofer Fjellner, Béla Glattfelder, Jacky Hénin, Erika Mann, David Martin, Georgios Papastamkos, Peter Šťastný, Iuliu Winkler
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Jean-Pierre Audy, Sajjad Karim, Zbigniew Zaleski

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	1.4.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	36 1 2
Members present for the final vote	Peter Baco, Bernadette Bourzai, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Esther Herranz García, Lily Jacobs, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Mairead McGuinness, Véronique Mathieu, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, James Nicholson, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Petya Stavreva, Dimitar Stoyanov, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Jeffrey Titford, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Janusz Wojciechowski
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Alessandro Battilocchio, Katerina Batzeli, Ilda Figueiredo, Gábor Harangozó, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Esther De Lange, Brian Simpson, Struan Stevenson
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	-