Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine"

(2000/C 51/10)

On 18 November 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 37 and 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

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 16 November 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Leif E. Nielsen.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 8 December 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 114 votes to one, with three abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine(1) has been amended over 30 times, most recently by Directive 98/99/EC.(2) The Directive covers a range of serious contagious animal diseases. The many amendments reflect the complexity of the matter and the considerable animal health problems generated by free movement of live animals within the EU. The contagious animal diseases include tuberculosis and brucellosis - zoonoses comparable with diseases such as salmonella, listeria and E. coli which can be transmitted from animals to humans. All Member States have not yet qualified as free, or officially free, from these two diseases in accordance with the Directive's provisions.

1.2. Directive 95/25/EC(3) introduced a derogation exempting beef cattle from individual tuberculosis and brucellosis tests in trade between Member States with the same health status. However, under Directive 98/99/EC, the Council decided to set in motion a complete updating of the provisions of the original Directive 64/432/EEC as from 1 July 1999. These amendments repeal the derogation and allow more Member States to apply for recognition as being officially free of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Unless the animals concerned come from a Member State which is either officially tuberculosis- and brucellosis-free or operates a recognised monitoring system, tests must therefore be carried out on the individual animal prior to export, including to Member States with the same health status.

1.3. However, it subsequently proved that in some of the Member States concerned it would in practice not be feasible to comply with the individual test requirement by the set deadline.

1.4. At the request of the relevant Member States, the Commission is now proposing to restrict application of the Directive 95/25/EC provisions until the end of 2000. At the same time the procedural rules enabling the Commission to adopt further transitional measures in consultation with the Standing Veterinary Committee are to be updated. The proposed new committee procedure would involve the European Parliament formally overseeing the Commission's use of its powers to adopt such transitional measures. Lastly, a number of technical provisions are designed to clarify the rules concerning tuberculosis testing and the system of identifying animals from Member States which are officially disease free.

1.5. The proposal concerns both agricultural policy and public health and is founded on Articles 37 and 152 of the Treaty. Hence the procedure set out in Article 251 of the Treaty relating to the common decisionmaking procedure is applicable.

2. General comments

2.1. The ESC has repeatedly stressed the need for top level EU harmonisation of veterinary matters and for keeping derogations to a strict minimum. The outbreaks of swine fever in recent years have provided ample proof of the serious consequences that can result from failure to pay sufficient attention and monitor contagious animal diseases properly.

2.2. In the run-up to EU enlargement, it is also vital that the current Member States are united in their support for this aim, with the attendant practical implications for all parties involved. Enlargement will bring in its wake an increased risk of diseases spreading over wider areas. FAO, the UN food and agriculture organisation, has already in the present situation warned of the greater risks inherent in long distance transport, new transport routes to and from non-EU countries, increased contacts with countries where conditions are unstable and the continuing concentration of livestock in certain EU areas.

2.3. Against this background the ESC urges the Member States to act as speedily as possible to introduce the requisite measures to qualify as tuberculosis- and brucellosis-free, and subsequently for official status. In this connection, the ESC assumes as a matter of course that the Commission will do its utmost to help. The eradication of these diseases will also make it possible to step up action to bring other zoonoses under control.

2.4. In its capacity as representative of the interests most tangibly affected by the EU's decisions, the ESC finds it justified to call on the authorities involved to ensure that the decisions proposed can in practice be implemented by the set deadline. If the EU is to be seen as trustworthy and credible, deadlines must be realistic and be fully respected by both the EU institutions and national authorities.

2.5. In the present case, the earlier deadlines were extended only after six months of non-compliance. Further, it is only now pointed out that the 1 July 1999 deadline would inevitably have caused serious disturbances to trade.

2.6. One cause of the problem is apparently that certain Member States only involve their central veterinary authorities in the decisionmaking procedure and fail to consult the decentralised veterinary expertise and administrative bodies which are in a position to provide a more objective assessment of the practical circumstances, and are also willing to take on the tasks of practical implementation and monitoring of compliance. The lack of transparency of the rules, as a result of the constant changes, has no doubt aggravated the situation.

2.7. However, the ESC recognises the need for flexibility in the special circumstances and feels able to endorse the implementation of the derogation provisions, subject to the above reservations. One key condition must also be that application presupposes the agreement of the importer country, that animals are not used as productive livestock, that there is no possibility of infecting disease-free herds and that they may under no circumstances be imported into Member States or regions with a higher disease-free status.

2.8. The proposal to authorise the Commission, in consultation with the Standing Veterinary Committee, to adopt further transitional arrangements for up to three years, unless the European Parliament finds in the specific case that the Commission has exceeded its powers, is questionable and raises a number of issues of principle. Hence it should not be automatically endorsed in connection with a matter of urgency.

2.9. The common decisionmaking procedure is lengthy and inappropriate in practical situations like the present one. The ESC therefore fully understands the Commission's wish for a more streamlined and efficient procedure. However in the case in point, the problems were blamed, as already mentioned, on failure to study and think out properly the basis for the Council Decision of December 1998 - which does not as such justify adoption of a new committee procedure. That would also set a precedent in other spheres and further complication of the committee procedures should be avoided. Future restrictions on further transitional arrangements, especially where repeated and relating to the accession of new member countries, is another issue.

3. Special comments

3.1. The title of Directive 64/432/EEC and its Danish translation should be revised at an appropriate juncture and, for instance, aligned with the English version, which refers to animal health, as opposed to veterinary policy, problems.

Brussels, 8 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

(1) OJ 121, 29.7.64.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.98, p.107.

(3) OJ L 243, 11.10.95, p.16.