(132)

In order to establish its future policy, the Commission has in particular taken account of the following considerations: (a) where a farmer loses livestock as a result of animal disease, or where his crops are affected by plant disease, this does not normally constitute a natural disaster or an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of the Treaty. In such cases aids to provide compensation for the losses incurred, and aids to prevent future losses may only be permitted by the Commission on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, which provides that aids to facilitate the development of certain activities may be considered compatible with the common market provided that it does not affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest; (b) in accordance with the above-mentioned principles, the Commission considers that the payment of aid to farmers to compensate for losses resulting from animal or plant diseases may only be accepted as part of an appropriate programme at Community, national or regional level for the prevention, control or eradication of the disease concerned. Aids which simply compensate farmers for losses incurred without taking any steps to remedy the problem at source must be considered as pure operating aids which are incompatible with the common market. Therefore the Commission will require that Community or national provisions exist, whether laid down by law, regulation or administrative action, to the effect that the competent national authorities should deal with the disease in question, either by organising measures to eradicate it, in particular through binding measures giving rise to compensation, or initially by setting up an alert system combined, where appropriate with aid to encourage individuals to take part in preventative measures on a voluntary basis (31). Accordingly, only diseases which are a matter of concern for the public authorities, and not measures for which farmers must reasonably take responsibility for themselves may be the subject of aid measures; (c) the objectives of the aid measures should be either: (i) Preventative, in that they involve screening measures or analyses, the extermination of pests which may transmit the disease, preventative vaccinations of animals or treatment of crops, and preventative slaughtering of livestock or destruction of crops, or (ii) Compensatory, in that the affected livestock is slaughtered or crops are destroyed on the orders or recommendation of the public authorities or die as a result of vaccinations or other measures recommended or ordered by the competent authorities, or (iii) Combined, in that the compensatory aid scheme for the losses resulting from the disease is subject to the condition that the recipient undertakes to take suitable future preventative measures as laid down by the public authorities. (d) in order to improve risk management, account should be taken of the fact whether the behaviour of the farmer (e.g. the choice of production method) has contributed to an increased risk of disease. (e) as in the past, compensation for animal and plant diseases should be limited to the level of primary production (farmers). For companies active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products the impact of such diseases on their business must be considered a normal business risk. If such companies face economic difficulties because of the effects of animal or plant diseases, they may be supported via rescue and restructuring aid. The inclusion of agricultural processing and marketing companies in the de minimis Regulation covering non-agricultural companies, opening the possibility of support up to EUR 200 000 per company and three fiscal years provides an additional facility to support such companies; (f) as regards aid for TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) tests, the following considerations have been taken into account: (i) the tests serve the purpose of avoiding the spread of TSE, a disease that is of particular concern from the point of view of the protection of human health; (ii) there is a risk of distortion of competition arising from different levels of State aid granted, at least as far as slaughter cattle is concerned. However, most Member States do currently grant some State aid. Prices for TSE tests continue to vary between Member States. In order to reduce the risk of distortions of competition which could be caused by aid granted towards TSE tests for cattle slaughtered for human consumption, and in order to encourage research towards low-price tests, aid should be limited to EUR 40, which is roughly the best price currently available in the Community; (iii) there is concern that making farmers pay for the cost of testing fallen stock could make some of them try to avoid controls by illegally disposing of carcasses, reducing the reliability of statistical data, and create health risks; (iv) as regards low-value animals such as sheep and goats, TSE tests may cost more than the value of the animal. Making owners pay for tests could entail the risk that such animals are marketed without testing, again reducing the availability of data; (v) for both fallen stock and low-value animals, the risk of distortions of competition from the granting of aid seems to be lower than in the case of slaughter cattle; (g) As regards aid for fallen stock, the following considerations have been taken into account: (i) fallen stock is a regular feature of keeping live animals, and therefore part of normal production costs; (ii) the ‘polluter pays’ principle (32) establishes a primary responsibility of producers to take proper care of removal of fallen stock, and to finance the costs of it; (iii) granting aid for the elimination of waste may go against the principle applied in agriculture that aid should only be granted for behaviour, which goes beyond good agricultural practice. Community legislation, which is part of good agricultural practice, requires proper disposal of carcasses; (iv) the costs of removing fallen stock can be high, in particular where carcasses of heavy animals such as cattle or horses have to be removed from remote locations; (v) it is difficult to control what farmers do with carcasses. There is a risk that carcasses are disposed of illegally, creating serious health risks; (vi) where carcasses have to be tested for TSE, their uncontrolled disposal in order to avoid test costs could have the additional inconvenience that these animals are not tested, although it could be that precisely these animals should be tested, in order to assure solid statistical data on TSE; (vii) the risks of distortions of competition from State aid granted for the removal of fallen stock is considered relatively low; (viiii) State aid should only be accepted for fallen stock occurring at the level of farmers, and not at any other level, e. g. slaughterhouses, where control of proper removal is easier; (ix) where animals are culled for disease reasons on the basis of a public order, compensation for the farmer should continue to be examined and authorised on the basis of the general rules for animal disease compensation as set out in sub-chapter V.B.4. In relation to TSE, Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (33) specifies that ‘owners shall be compensated without delay for the loss of the animals which have been killed or products of animal origin destroyed in accordance with Article 12(2) and paragraph 1(a) and (c) of this Article.’; (h) as to aid for slaughterhouse waste, the following considerations have been taken into account: (i) slaughterhouse waste is any waste occurring at the level of slaughterhouses, cutting plants or butchers, including in particular animal by-products covered by categories 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (34); (ii) the removal and destruction of slaughterhouse waste is a major cost factor for slaughterhouses and cutting plants (and their clients, if they are charged for it); (iii) the ‘polluter pays’ principle establishes a primary responsibility of producers of waste to take proper care of its removal, and to finance the costs of it; (iv) the granting of State aid for this can create serious distortions of competition; (v) control normally appears to ensure that slaughterhouse waste is dealt with properly; (vi) there is broad agreement amongst most Member States that the costs of the removal of slaughterhouse waste should be borne by operators responsible for them; (vii) it would therefore seem appropriate to clearly exclude State aid for the cost of the disposal of slaughterhouse waste, or other operating costs of slaughterhouses. State aid for investments undertaken in relation to the disposal of slaughterhouse waste will be examined under the relevant rules applying to investment aid.