EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/125

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Action Plan for the implementation of the EU Animal Health Strategy’

(COM(2008) 545 final)

(Additional opinion)

(2009/C 277/26)

Rapporteur: Mr NIELSEN

On 24 February 2009, the European Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 29A of the implementing provisions of the Rules of Procedure, to draw up an additional opinion on the

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Action Plan for the Implementation of the EU Animal Health Strategy.

(COM(2008) 545 final).

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 April 2009. The rapporteur was Mr NIELSEN.

At its 453rd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 May 2009 (meeting of 13 May), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 189 votes to 2 with 11 abstentions.

1. Conclusion

1.1. The EESC supports the Commission' proposals on the implementation of the EU Animal Health Strategy, and is pleased that the Commission has broadly taken on board the EESC's comments made at the time the suggested new strategy was put forward. The EESC reiterates its call for the EU to step up its efforts to prevent, supervise and control serious, contagious livestock diseases, a large number of which continue to present a global risk. The EESC therefore continues to hope that the EU's future rules will have a far-reaching knock-on effect on the rest of the world. The Commission should also help foster a clear understanding of new EU legislation in the relevant non-EU countries, and use expertise and resources in the Member States to solve crises. At the same time, efforts should be stepped up vis-à-vis developing countries, and top priority should be given to putting indicators in place as these are of fundamental importance. It is also important to preserve the veterinary fund and harmonise Member States' co-financing in order to avoid distortions of competition.

2. Background

2.1. In 2007, the EESC expressed support for the Commission's proposal for a new Animal Health Strategy for the 2007-2013 period (1). The present action plan gives practical expression to the strategy and provides a timetable for the 31 detailed initiatives (2) to be implemented by 2013 in the four areas of activity (prioritisation, legislative framework, prevention and research). The most important features are a new EU animal health law, and revised responsibility- and cost-sharing arrangements. Other features include the EU's long-term desire to become a member of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), measures against health-related barriers to exports, the categorisation and prioritisation of risks resulting from animal diseases and of chemical risks, guidelines on biosecurity among livestock and at borders, the development of electronic information systems, the reinforcement of the EU antigen and vaccine banks, the development of new medicines and vaccines, and the monitoring of zoonotic micro-organisms' resistance to antibiotics. The overriding goal is to simplify and improve existing and new legislation, and to provide more effective rules. The Commission thus wants to systemically assess the individual proposals and consider possible alternatives in order to achieve better and simpler legislation.

3. General comments

3.1. The action plan is relevant and well thought-through, and the EESC welcomes the large degree of openness and willingness to cooperate that has marked the process so far, including the attention the Commission has paid to the EESC's comments. Progress now needs to be made in outlining and prioritising the areas to be covered by the action plan. This should be based on a comparison of the risks that diseases pose for human health, the suffering they cause in animals, and the economic impact on producers and businesses.

3.2. As the EESC has already stated, it is crucial for EU credibility that its institutions and Member States meet the deadlines they themselves have set for the submission, adoption and implementation of the specific provisions. Unfortunately, this is currently more the exception than the rule. It is therefore important that the Commission set realistic deadlines for the submission of its proposals and reports, and that it actually meet those deadlines in practice.

3.3. With regard to the deadlines for individual measures, it should also be made clear that the ‘indicative timeline’ for legislative initiatives and the ‘date for completion’ refer to the submission of proposals and not the final decision, which will require a time consuming decision-making process. The statement that the specific actions on animal welfare set out in the 2006 action plan (3), are now an integral part of the Animal Health Strategy is particularly unclear, as the timeframe for many of these measures was already exceeded shortly after the action plan was submitted.

3.4. It is essential to make sure that the individual measures lead to a higher level of protection and are made more effective. Account must thereby be taken of the proportionality principle and moves to provide a better and simpler regulatory framework. It is also important that the follow-up to the animal health strategy is carried out in open cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders, amongst other things by means of a communication plan and the Animal Health Advisory Committee.

4. Specific comments

4.1. The EESC supports the overall goal of creating a regulatory framework that sets out the common principles and requirements for animal health and indicates any interfaces with, existing legislation on animal welfare, food safety, public health, and agricultural policy. The planned moves to simplify and improve legislation will also help to render this policy area more coherent and open. However, this also requires a cross-cutting approach and that due account be taken of the requirements of food safety, animal health and disease prevention. It is important to make the most of synergies in these areas, and animal welfare should, wherever appropriate, be drawn further into the mainstream of animal health policy than has been the case up to now.

4.2. The proposed categorisation of animal diseases and the definition of the term ‘an acceptable risk level’ present major challenges for cooperation. Basically, any categorisation should have a scientific base, i.e. diseases should be categorised in line with epidemiological factors and scope for monitoring. At the same time, the economic and commercial impact of diseases must also be brought into the equation.

4.3. According to the action plan, initiatives and resources will ‘be focused on diseases with high public relevance’. This statement, of course refers to diseases which are a threat to human health. However, the term ‘public relevance’ and the associated costs should also cover diseases that have serious economic consequences for the sector and thus also for Member States' economies.

4.4. When simplifying or revising existing legislation, it is also vital to seek greater convergence between the EU's rules and the OIE's recommendations. It is essential to avoid inappropriate restrictions on competition between Member States and vis-à-vis non-EU countries. When drawing up new veterinary or animal welfare legislation, the EU must therefore work to ensure that its rules are readily understandable for non-EU countries and are harmonised as far as possible.

4.5. The effective and responsible cost-sharing model sought by the Commission should continue to be based on joint funding from the EU and Member States, but should also take into account the responsibility of the sector itself and the current costs of disease prevention and cure. The EU's contribution to funding via the veterinary fund therefore should be retained, but Member States' share of co-funding should be harmonised to avoid distortions in competition resulting from a differences in the share of public and private funding. Direct and indirect costs should both be reimbursable to ensure, under all circumstances, that the incentive to report outbreaks of serious, contagious diseases is maintained in the future Animal Health Strategy. It will also be necessary, as highlighted by the Commission, to carry out an in-depth analysis of existing possibilities before proposals for a harmonised cost-sharing model of cost allocation are put forward.

4.6. The feed sector is of major importance to animal health since the handling of feed is crucial to disease prevention. The EESC, however, regrets that no detailed explanation has been provided of the reasons for the proposal to introduce financial guarantees in the feed sector. It appears that the conclusions in the report on financial guarantees in the feed sector have not been taken into consideration (4).

4.7. As the EESC has previously noted, in the interests of public acceptance, among other things, vaccination should be used in connection with combating disease outbreaks if it can advantageously replace or supplement the culling of healthy animals. However, as the Commission also points out, vaccination should be carried out in the light of the concrete situation and be based on recognised principles and factors, such as the accessibility and effectiveness of the vaccine, valid tests, international guidelines and possible trade barriers, cost-effectiveness and the possible risks related to the use of vaccines.

4.8. Further research and development is needed in this area. The Commission also needs to make the EU's vaccination policy more readily understandable outside the EU's borders to reduce the number of doubtful cases that arise during export.

4.9. Finding solutions to acute crises has hitherto largely been the responsibility of individual Member States and the relevant third countries, and it is vital that, in future too, problems continue to be resolved jointly by the partners involved. The current division of responsibilities has worked well. For this reason, the individual right to negotiate should be maintained, provided that the Commission is kept informed.

4.10. On most farms today, a range of measures are in place, involving a combination of specific action, routine practice and general common sense. Considerable legal uncertainty would be created if these voluntary preventive measures, which are usually carried out on the producers' initiative or as a result of advice provided by agricultural associations, had to be performed as part of moves to establish a cost-sharing model.

4.11. Even though it may at first seem appropriate to assess whether livestock producers in each case have done enough to prevent the introduction and spread of a contagious disease, using such an assessment as the basis for a decision on financial compensation does raise problems. The lack of information on the impact of such preventive action on the different types of livestock makes it very difficult at present to apply such rules in practice. Further research and development is thus needed to examine the available options – and their applicability in practice.

4.12. The basic rules on biosecurity need to be set out in legislation, which can later be supplemented with more specific rules in the form of guidelines for different types of livestock or forms of production (for example, hobby farmers). Moreover, there is a need for the ongoing provision of information within the ambit of cooperation between authorities and agricultural associations.

4.13. Research, development and the provision of advice are crucial to achieving the strategy's goal. Most research is only of value once it is actually used in production, advice and monitoring. Transfer of knowledge is therefore an important area of action. The Strategic Research Agenda thus fails to focus enough on prevention based on initiatives that do not involve veterinary medicine. Livestock associations should therefore be more fully involved in efforts to find solutions than is the Commission's apparent intention.

4.14. In a large number of Member States, there is a growing risk that standards will be set at the lowest common denominator. Individual Member States that wish to press ahead should be given the possibility to do so, provided this does not harm the Community's interests. This would allow experience to be gained, which could be put to use at a later stage in other Member States. For example, the Commission is not planning to submit a proposal on the electronic identification of cattle as a replacement for ear tags until 2011. This will be followed by a time-consuming decision-making process. Given the clear advantages of electronic identification in terms of a reduced workload on farms, improved registration of treated livestock, thus also securing more effective analysis, and greater product safety, scope should be provided for speedier introduction.

Brussels, 13 May 2009. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) 2007 Communication from the Commission: A new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013) where ‘Prevention is better than cure’, and the EESC's opinion of 16 January 2008, OJ C 151, 17.6.2008.

(2) Commission Communication (2008) 545 contains 21 initiatives. However, the Commission's internal planning is based on 31 initiatives. See http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/pillars/action_en.htm.

(3) COM(2006) 13 - Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, and the EESC opinion of 26 October 2006, OJ C 324, 30.12.2006.

(4) Appendix to COM(2007) 469 regarding financial guarantees in the feed sector and description of the existing arrangements.