Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a European Agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection` () (97/C 66/13)

On 2 August 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 November 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Nilsson.

At its 340th Plenary Session on 27 and 28 November (meeting of 27 November) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 82 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1. In the proposal for a Council Regulation the Commission suggests that an Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection should be set up.

1.2. This means that the existing Office would be reinforced and safeguarded; inspectors would see an increase in their autonomy; and on-the-spot checks and assessments could be carried out in the Member States and in third countries. Competence for checks and surveillance would shift from the Commission to the Agency.

1.3. The Commission proposes that the Agency should be funded by 1 % of the fees to be charged by Member States, under Community rules, for veterinary inspections. Other budgets would not be affected.

1.4. According to the proposal, the Agency would be run by a management board consisting of representatives from each of the Member States, two Commission representatives and two scientific experts to be appointed by the European Parliament. A Director would be appointed for a period of five years.

2. General remarks

2.1. A strong and efficient authority for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and supervision is needed for the efficient operation of the single market and increased consumer protection. It must have full powers to oversee the proper implementation of Community Directives and to check that Community requirements of third countries are fulfilled.

2.2. The crisis affecting much of the EU's beef production provides ample demonstration of the need for Commission arrangements for inspection and supervision in Member States and in third countries. In order to achieve a level playing field within the single market, all Member States need to follow and implement Council Directives.

2.3. The present Office's resources are insufficient to deal with the current situation. There has also been a tendency to try and restrict its powers and cut its budget.

2.4. It is therefore important that the inspection authority should be provided with the resources it needs to operate effectively.

2.5. The proposed financial provisions are fundamentally flawed for several reasons, which will be discussed below.

2.6. If the management board is to operate effectively, its membership should be restricted. Member State impartiality can be maintained by rotating the term of office.

2.7. The Committee has not been convinced of the need to convert the existing Office into an Agency. Neither is such a conclusion reflected in the Council agreement of 29 October 1993. The Committee believes that the Office must be reinforced with a larger permanent staff, unless it is proven beyond doubt that the creation of an agency will have substantially better results for public health, consumer protection and the food industry.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Justification for the proposal

3.1.1. The Committee endorses the proposal's rationale on the Agency's competence and main areas of activity.

3.1.2. The Committee would, however, point out that the Agency's administrative and financial independence does not so much hang on the way it is funded, as on its procedural framework. Any funding which relies on Member State veterinary controls is likely to be uncertain, and will lead to disparities between Member States and the parties involved.

3.1.3. The Committee believes that a prerequisite for establishing the Agency is that it should be wholly funded through budget allocations, as is the comparable Environment Agency.

3.1.4. The Committee would also emphasize the need - when transferring the Agency to Ireland - to avoid setting up a similar administration within the Commission in Brussels. The result would be unnecessary duplication of effort, and confusion regarding competence.

3.2. Article 2 - Objective

3.2.1. The Committee considers that the list of foodstuffs for inspection should be clarified so as to include those listed in Appendix II to the Treaty.

3.2.2. Moreover, the Committee feels that the Agency's remit should include initiating proposals to the Commission and pointing out shortcomings within its area of activity.

3.3. Article 4 - Management board

3.3.1. In the Committee's view, the management board should consist of Member State representatives, the proposed scientific experts and Commission representatives, and also include representatives for both consumers and producers.

3.3.2. The Committee also feels that the two specialists in the field of veterinary and phytosanitary sciences should be appointed by the European Parliament, following proposals from the Commission.

3.3.3. For veterinary inspection, the Standing Veterinary Committee, and its phytosanitory counterpart, with their broad, representative membership from the Member States, will continue to exist.

3.3.4. The management board should be restricted to ten members at the most, with half covering phytosanitary inspection and the other half veterinary inspection. Members should be nominated by the Member States but appointed by the Commission. The term of office will pass from Member State to Member State by fixed rotation.

3.3.5. The term of office should be for a period of two years rather than the three years suggested in the proposal. The same should apply to the director and the deputy director.

3.3.6. There might be a case for requiring the management board to submit a proposal for its own rules of procedure, prior to approval in a Commission Decision.

3.3.7. The work programme should also be for a period of two years.

3.3.8. Article 4(9) should be amended to the effect that the Committee must also be consulted on the annual general report. It is natural that the Committee should be involved, given that its members represent inter alia employers, consumers and relevant trades union organizations.

3.4. Article 5 - The director

3.4.1. Article 5(1) states that the director shall be appointed for a term of five years. This could be useful for the exigencies of stability and continuity, and to ensure the director is not affected by temporary problems. On the other hand, it is also important that the management board should be able to intervene should the Agency's activities run foul of the established procedure.

3.5. Article 6 - Budget

3.5.1. The Committee firmly believes that the Agency can only be funded via specific budget allocations. It follows that Article 6(3) must be amended accordingly.

3.5.2. Monitoring of compliance with, and implementation of, existing Directives is a common priority and must be funded as such. There are currently great discrepancies in the scope and application of veterinary controls in the various Member States. Moreover, funding by means of fees would give rise to considerable monitoring problems and expense, both for the Member States and the Commission.

3.6. Article 17 - Review clause

3.6.1. Given the Committee's recommendations for changes in management board membership, and a shorter term of office, it is appropriate that the Agency's activities should be reported and assessed earlier than after the five years suggested in the proposal. The report should be compiled after two years at the latest, i.e. after the first term of office.

3.6.2. Similarly, Article 17 should also include a requirement to consult the Committee, together with the European Parliament, on the report which the Commission is required to produce. The Committee has an obvious role to play here, precisely because it includes representatives from several sections of society affected by the Agency's activities, who can provide useful, objective comments on its performance.

Brussels, 27 November 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ No C 239, 17. 8. 1996, p. 9.

APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment was defeated during the debate:

Point 3.3.4

Delete and replace with the following:

'Half of the members of the management board should cover phytosanitary inspection and the other half veterinary inspection. Members should be nominated by the Member States but appointed by the Commission`.

Result of the vote

For: 40, against: 59, abstentions: 14.