WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Financial measures to limit the transport of livestock and meat and ensure that subsidies do not result in spurious trading

1. Does it happen that traders who receive subsidies for exporting calves outside the territory of the EU subsequently reimport and then re-export the same calves in order to obtain the subsidies again after which the calves themselves are simply dumped?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the abolition of an independent meat inspectorate and cutbacks in the sterilisation of animal meal by superheating contributed to the spread of BSE in the United Kingdom?

3. What obstacles now exist to the provision of increased stable room for livestock and more storage space for meat as a means of helping to ensure that animals which are temporarily infected with a disease are given time to recover or that meat intended for consumption can be properly stored, as opposed to opting for immediate destruction?

4. Does the Commission have any information regarding the relationship between, on the one hand, interest rate subsidies, tax arrangements, financial incentives, support price guarantees, energy subsidies and environmental subsidies to benefit trade and producers and, on the other hand, the cost of epidemics to society as a whole? What was the cost-benefit situation each year from 1995 to 2000?

5. Is the Commission prepared to assist in the development and promotion of a duration index system for the agricultural sector, awarding tax bonuses which are proportionately greater for products which have travelled less, thereby discouraging shuttle trading in livestock and meat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

1. There are no export subsidies for exports of calves. Export refunds are granted for exports of pure-bred breeding animals and cattle for slaughter. The conditions for the granting of such aid make it possible to assess the genuineness of export operations. The Commission does not have any evidence to suggest that fraud of this nature has taken place.

2. The Commission has not carried out any investigation into a link between the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the organisation of the British meat inspectorate. Neither has it enquired into a connection with specific changes which might have taken place in British animal waste rendering standards; however it is now accepted that the principal means of spread has been through the feeding of infective meat and bone meal.

3. In case of the occurrence of certain rapidly spreading animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever, Community legislation provides for a number of control measures, including: i) slaughtering and destruction of animals on infected farms; ii) restrictions of movements of animals from the neighbouring farms or other disease-suspected farms, as these animals may be incubating the disease.

However, if certain conditions are met, animals may be moved from the farms under restriction to slaughterhouses. In general, their meat cannot be traded normally, as it comes from animals of uncertain health status, and must undergo certain treatments ensuring the destruction of the relevant disease agent, if any. Increasing space for the storage of this meat would probably not be of any advantage, as prolonged storage in itself does not offer sufficient health guarantees.

Increasing space on farms may be helpful to reduce animal welfare problems, which in particular may occur on pig farms under restriction. In the light of the Commission proposal for a Council Directive

amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs(1), following the opinion of the Parliament, the Council has recently amended the minimum standards on protection of pigs laid down in Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991(2). The new Directive will provide for further space for sows and gilts. In any case Member States may adopt more rigorous standards than the ones adopted at Community level, if deemed suitable.

4. The Commission is not aware of any studies on the subject referred to by the Honourable Member. Nor does it have all the information needed for its departments to carry out such a study, as several factors which would have to be taken into account do not fall within its area of responsibility.

5. The Commission is involved in establishing sustainable development indicators for the agricultural sector. On this subject, the Honourable Member is referred in particular to the working document on sustainable development indicators(3) and the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the statistical information needed for indicators to monitor the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy(4). However, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the introduction of tax bonuses is not at present a Community matter.

(1) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(3) SEC(2001) 266.

(4) COM(2001) 144 final.