Debašu stenogramma

Pirmdiena, 2006. gada 11. decembris - Strasbūra

17. Izdevumi veterinārijas jomā (debates)

  Presidente. Segue-se o relatório da Deputada Ilda Figueiredo, em nome da Comissão da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural, sobre uma proposta de decisão do Conselho que altera a Decisão 90/424/CEE relativa a determinadas despesas no domínio veterinário [COM(2006)0273 - C6-0199/2006 - 2006/0098(CNS)] (A6-0409/2006).

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Mr President, firstly I would like to say that I am grateful for the work done by the Members of the committees concerned with this Commission proposal to amend Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field. This year, the Commission allocated approximately EUR 210 million to assist Member States in running eradication and monitoring programmes to counter animal diseases. This programme is a key element in our food safety strategy.

As we all know, animal diseases are unpredictable – the unexpected can and does happen. In 2005-2006 even though we saw outbreaks of avian flu, blue tongue and classical swine fever in some Member States, none of them was a major outbreak and we managed to keep them under control and not allow them to cause extensive damage.

The Commission has embarked on a wide-ranging review of Community animal health policy. An extensive evaluation has recently been completed and the results were presented at a conference held in Brussels last month. I was pleased to note that several honourable Members attended, and indeed chaired, sessions.

One of the primary areas of interest for discussion today and one which generated considerable interest was the possible introduction of an insurance or cost-sharing element to help fund disease eradication costs. However, these are longer-term measures which still need considerable discussion with the various stakeholders before we can determine how best to proceed. There are, however, a number of key changes which we can make now, in order to improve efficiency in how the Commission and the Member States manage funding in this area. The proposal before us today aims to make such changes, while allowing the necessary time for other longer-term issues to be dealt with in the ongoing policy review.

The proposal contains three main elements. First, we propose to introduce the possibility of multiannual programming for the disease eradication programmes, but with a simplified procedure which will make it easier both for the Member States and also for the Commission. Second, we propose to strengthen the legal basis for the TRACES programme, but also for communication. It is interesting to note that we currently have a legal base for communication activities in animal welfare but not for animal health, and this is going to be corrected in the proposal. Third, we propose to limit the list of disease eradication programmes eligible for funding to those that correspond to clear priorities, but with a procedure under which this list could be amended when necessary in response to developments.

The proposed changes would make important advances in strengthening and prioritising our food safety strategy. The proposal makes a number of improvements which will also increase efficiency and reduce bureaucracy, both for the Commission and the Member States. I am grateful for Parliament’s support.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), relatora. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, o relatório que apresento em nome da Comissão da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural considera positiva a proposta da Comissão Europeia no que se refere à possibilidade de aprovar programas plurianuais a apresentar pelos Estados-Membros e à actualização de alguns dos instrumentos que acompanham a política comunitária em matéria de sanidade animal. No entanto, considera insuficientes algumas medidas contidas na proposta que pretende alterar a Decisão 90/424/CEE do Conselho.

Por isso insistimos em doze propostas de alteração pretendendo atingir cinco objectivos essenciais: o primeiro, constatando que existe um escasso conhecimento do que se tem passado com os programas de erradicação, controlo e vigilância de determinadas doenças animais nos diversos Estados-Membros, consiste em propor que a Comissão apresente, de quatro em quatro anos, ao Parlamento Europeu e ao Conselho um relatório sobre a situação da sanidade animal e a relação custo-eficácia da aplicação dos programas nos diversos Estados-Membros incluindo uma explicitação dos critérios adoptados.

Em segundo lugar, verificando que há diferentes atitudes e comportamentos face às mesmas doenças em diversos Estados-Membros mesmo vizinhos, o que pode afectar a eficácia das medidas adoptadas, propõe-se o apoio a acções de divulgação de boas-práticas e o incentivo à apresentação de programas comuns de dois ou mais Estados-Membros em zonas fronteiriças, sempre que tal se revele importante para a luta contra as doenças animais contagiosas, incluindo as zoonoses, e para a sua vigilância e erradicação.

Terceiro, face a situações de emergência que requerem dispêndios súbitos e não programáveis de recursos financeiros muito elevados, insistir em que sejam sempre feitas as respectivas propostas de financiamento, que não devem ficar sujeitas aos prazos referidos na presente decisão, a qual, de qualquer modo, deve aumentar ligeiramente os prazos previstos pela Comissão Europeia. Tome-se como exemplo o surto de febre aftosa no Reino Unido em 2000. No caso destas doenças, as medidas impostas são tanto mais eficazes quanto mais precoce e radical for a sua aplicação. Para isso é necessário constituir uma reserva financeira mínima para acudir a estas situações de calamidade que surgem de forma súbita, insidiosa e não previsível.

Em quarto lugar, propomos completar a lista anexa à referida decisão incluindo as doenças contagiosas animais relativamente às quais poderá ser concedido um apoio financeiro comunitário, ao contrário da proposta da Comissão que pretende reduzir essa lista. Assim, a proposta contida neste relatório da Comissão da Agricultura adiciona oito doenças, para além das actuais, e propõe mais algumas de molde a assegurar igualmente o financiamento do seu controlo e erradicação.

Registe-se que esta proposta é da maior importância, uma vez que se sabe que há vários países onde estão a decorrer programas de erradicação que não devem ser interrompidos. Em Portugal, por exemplo, situação que conheço melhor, a leucose bovina é uma doença que tem programas de erradicação há cerca de vinte anos, encontrando-se na fase terminal da sua erradicação definitiva. No último ano já foram encontrados muito poucos casos de leucose, estimando-se que mais um ano de campanha permita erradicar definitivamente a doença. Ora, a não elegibilidade desta doença para financiamento poderia comprometer todo o esforço desenvolvido e conduzir ao seu recrudescimento descontrolado.

Outro caso é o da doença de Newcastle, endémica em aves silvestres, que pode a todo o momento transmitir-se às aves de capoeira não vacinadas. As consequências económicas desta doença para a avicultura seriam devastadoras. Também a doença de Aujeszky dos suínos, que a Comissão pretendia excluir, tem um programa previsto para Portugal, correspondendo a sua não erradicação à impossibilidade de envio de suínos para alguns mercados. Outras doenças como a brucelose suína, não contemplada na lista proposta pela Comissão, são doenças que podem pôr o mesmo tipo de problemas às trocas comerciais, sendo esta última doença endémica na bacia do Mediterrâneo.

Em quinto lugar, a Comissão propõe também, em nome da simplificação da legislação em vigor, a revogação da Decisão 90/638/CEE que estabelece os critérios comunitários aplicáveis às acções de erradicação e de vigilância de determinadas doenças dos animais, substituindo-os pelos novos critérios técnicos constantes dos anexos da nova decisão que estamos a apreciar e que a Comissão quer posteriormente transformar em critérios e requisitos normalizados.

Neste relatório propomos um novo parecer do Parlamento Europeu no caso de haver uma alteração dos critérios em vigor.

Por último, Senhor Presidente, quero apenas transmitir os meus agradecimentos a todos os que colaboraram na elaboração deste relatório, esperando que a Comissão tenha em devida conta as propostas apresentadas que visam contribuir para a melhoria da sanidade animal.

PRZEWODNICZY: JANUSZ ONYSZKIEWICZ
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Mairead McGuinness, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for her work on this report and the Commission for its contribution this evening.

I will deal with the future, because that is important in terms of the review. However, as regards the issues in this report, as we have said, by and large we agree with much of the proposal. Everyone recognises the need to control and monitor animal diseases, not only because of the human health implications, but also because of the economic consequences where there are outbreaks. Take Ireland in 2001, where we had a foot-and-mouth outbreak and the country came to a standstill. Thankfully, we got it under control, but it showed what can happen when there are problems.

Information is the key to controlling, monitoring and being effective when diseases occur, and I am glad to see that we will be looking at better information systems within Member States and between Member States.

The funding proposal for information policy is very positive, and the multiannual programme is a very practical proposal: it makes it easier for Member States and that is to be welcomed, as are the joint programmes by two Member States or border regions. We need the extension of the time limit for proposals from Member States in relation to their disease programmes. We extended the list of diseases; we are conscious that Article 6 allows for emergency situations, and that is to be welcomed.

I have a particular point to make as we look to the future: Europe needs to look beyond its borders and to ensure that our trade policy does not conflict with public health and food safety issues. We allow food imports into the EU and, at the very least, we need to ensure that the standards of our imports meet those of our home-produced food. We need to exclude imports where we have any doubt whatsoever. It is all too easy to import a problem, but it is very difficult to tackle a problem once it is within our borders. I am concerned that the WTO may be pushing for trade without due concern to animal health and human health implications. I am not convinced that our current rules meet my concerns and I do not believe that computerised systems alone will protect us.

Let me finish by saying that we have taken the lead in the EU on these issues, but it would be regrettable if, in pursuit of a trade deal, we were to sacrifice our standards and the health of our animals and of our citizens.

  Heinz Kindermann, im Namen der PSE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die zurzeit geltenden Vorschriften zur Tilgung, Bekämpfung und Überwachung von Tierseuchen und Zoonosen werden mit dem vorliegenden Vorschlag der Kommission nicht geändert. Vielmehr geht es darum, einige Begleitinstrumente der gemeinschaftlichen Tiergesundheitspolitik zu aktualisieren. Wir begrüßen dies, insbesondere aber die Ankündigung der Kommission, dass sie demnächst einen ausführlichen Bericht über die europäische Tiergesundheitspolitik vorlegen will. Dies wäre dann der richtige Zeitpunkt bzw. die Gelegenheit, um über weiter reichende Änderungen der jetzigen Vorschriften zu diskutieren und gegebenenfalls einen neuen Rechtsrahmen zu setzen.

Wir gehen konform mit der Begründung der Ziele des Vorschlags durch die Kommission ebenso wie mit der Berichterstatterin. Die vorgeschlagenen Anpassungen zur Änderung der Entscheidung 90/424/EWG des Rates werden von uns unterstützt ebenso wie die kritischen Anmerkungen und Hinweise der Berichterstatterin sowohl zur Finanzierung des Überwachungssystems für Tiertransporte als auch zum System der Finanzierung von unvorhergesehenen Krankheiten, Seuchenausbrüchen bzw. mit nachhaltigen Schäden verbundenen Tierkrankheiten. Für die Bekämpfung von Tierseuchen und Tierkrankheiten sind immer hohe finanzielle Mittel erforderlich. Diese kurzfristig bereitzustellen, ist eben häufig das Problem. Bestimmte finanzielle Mittel über eine Reserve – wie es die Berichterstatterin vorgeschlagen hat – einzustellen, sollte man natürlich überdenken. Insgeheim hoffen wir, dass es mit den vorgeschlagenen Änderungen zu einer verbesserten Durchführung der kofinanzierten Programme im Rahmen der Tierseuchenfreiheit kommt.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Frau Kommissarin, meine sehr geehrten Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte zuerst unserer Berichterstatterin danken für diesen sehr ausgewogenen Bericht danken. Es ist, wie meine Vorredner, insbesondere Dr. Kindermann, bereits gesagt haben, ein technischer Bericht, der Anpassungen bringt, die wir dringend brauchen.

In Krisensituationen ist Flexibilität unbedingt notwendig. Rasche Hilfe ist doppelte Hilfe, wenn solche Krisensituationen eintreten. Aber es braucht ein umsichtiges Reagieren und umsichtige Maßnahmen. Besser als Reagieren ist aber präventives Handeln. Eine langjährige Forderung des Landwirtschaftsausschusses besteht darin, die Einfuhr von lebenden Tieren aus Nicht-EU-Staaten ebenso intensiv zu kontrollieren, wie dies auch innerhalb der EU geschieht.

Die Tiergesundheit – das wissen wir alle – hat eine direkte Auswirkung auf die Produkte, die aus Tieren erzeugt werden, und damit letztendlich auf die Gesundheit unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Deshalb ist hier besonderes Augenmerk notwendig, um nicht mehr zu derart negativen Auswirkungen zu kommen, wie wir dies in der Vergangenheit erlebt haben, wo das Vertrauen der Bürger in die Produkte, die von Tieren stammen, sehr in Frage gestellt wurde, was der Wirtschaft zum Schaden gereichte.

  Bogdan Golik (PSE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pragnę wyrazić poparcie, również jako lekarz weterynarii, dla sprawozdania pani Figueiredo w szczególności zaś co do postulatu pozostawienia takich zakaźnych chorób zwierząt, jak białaczka bydła i choroba Aujeszkyego, w wykazie chorób kwalifikujących się do współfinansowania ze środków Wspólnoty. Pragnę przypomnieć, iż zwalczanie tych chorób w wielu państwach członkowskich Unii ma obecnie szczególne znaczenie, między innymi ze względu na handel wewnątrz Wspólnoty. Jednym z warunków dopuszczenia trzody chlewnej do handlu jest pochodzenie z regionu lub kraju wolnego do choroby Aujeszkyego. Podobnie jest w przypadku bydła, które musi pochodzić ze stad urzędowo wolnych od enzootycznej białaczki bydła.

Wiele nowych państw członkowskich z uwagi na ograniczone możliwości budżetowe nie posiada wystarczających środków finansowych na pełne zwalczanie tych chorób. Zaproponowana przez Komisję Europejską zmiana wykazu chorób polegająca na usunięciu z niej białaczki bydła i choroby Aujeszkyego, może skutkować znacznym ograniczeniem lub nawet wstrzymaniem realizowanych programów zwalczania.

Kwestią priorytetową jest również, by ewentualne zmiany aktualizacji wykazu chorób w przyszłości miały miejsce po wyrażeniu na to zgody ze strony Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady.

  Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I welcome the interest shown by the Members in the proposal to modify what we call the veterinary fund. I appreciate that the overall principles of the proposal have been accepted by Parliament.

The suggestions made are good ones but many of those are already being applied. The idea, for example, to allow emergency expenditure in a crisis is indeed essential, but the provision already exists in the decision under Article 3. The Commission funds actions to deal with those diseases on an emergency basis, normally at 50% co-financing of eligible measures and 60% for foot-and-mouth disease.

The idea of ensuring coordination between Member States submitting programmes is also welcome but this is also the case in reality. We will continue that approach but we feel that Article 16 is not the proper location. We will introduce the idea somewhere else – the idea of task forces and sharing best practice.

The eradication plans are publicly available on the Commission’s website, but we would be very happy to provide information on progress to Parliament and the Council and we recommend these to the Member States.

The decision sets out the criteria that Member States must fulfil when submitting eradication programmes to the Commission for consideration. Those are technical criteria. Therefore the regulatory committee procedure is appropriate to define the information required. Member States need to be very precise in the information they supply and it is therefore helpful for the Commission to specify the format required.

On the suggestion to delay the final date for submitting an application for funding, we encourage Member States to submit applications as early in the year as possible. Nevertheless, we can accept a final date of 30 April.

With regard to the list of diseases eligible to receive funding, which was raised by many speakers, we have proposed shortening the list to focus efforts on the key priorities: those diseases that have indirect implications for human health and diseases that may lead to serious trade problems. The addition of diseases or wider possibilities to allow Member States to submit any programme at all would risk dilution of those priorities. Nevertheless many of the diseases and issues raised will be or are being covered differently, for example, through the emergency expenditure (Article 3 of the decision). It covers those diseases that have the potential to cause very serious losses, such as classical swine fever, avian influenza or FMD, for example.

There are, however, two diseases on the list today, for which Member States currently receive funding: Aujeszky’s disease and bovine leucosis. For those two cases I am prepared to examine ways in which funding can continue for a number of years.

A full list of the Commission’s position on each of the amendments will be provided to Parliament. I trust that they will be included in the record of the sitting⁽¹⁾.

  Przewodniczący. Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek o godz. 12.30.

Annex – Position of the Commission

Figueiredo report (A6-0409/2006)

The Commission can accept Amendments 7, 8 and 10.

Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 12 can be accepted in part.

The Commission cannot accept Amendments 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11.

(1) Commission’s position on amendments by Parliament: see Annex.