WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/01

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Livestock premiums

In Sweden, and probably in other countries, livestock farmers have applied for and been granted EU livestock premiums, but then failed to treat their animals in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. Premiums have even been granted to persons who had been banned from keeping animals because of their past neglect.

The EU livestock premiums are paid even if the animals are neglected, and regardless whether their owner is authorised to keep livestock. The premiums are paid so long as the owner has the animals in his possession.

Is the Council aware of this problem and, if so, how does it intend to deal with it?

Has the Council sought to ascertain the percentage of the livestock premiums paid each year in the EU which goes to persons who neglect their livestock?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

1. The various schemes under which Community aid is payable to livestock farmers are governed by three Council Regulations, namely:

- Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1);

- Regulation (EC) No 2467/1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat(2). However, with effect from 1 January 2002, this Regulation was superseded by Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 of 19 December 2001(3);

- Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(4).

On one hand, these three Council legislative acts lay down the conditions for granting the various premiums for cattle, sheep and goats, as well as any supplementary aid which may be payable to livestock farmers. On the other, they define the criteria governing the eligibility of producers. The rules necessary for implementing these provisions are laid down by the Commission in accordance with the Management Committee procedure.

2. The Honourable Member is, moreover, undoubtedly aware that the Council has adopted a large body of legislation concerning livestock welfare [cf. in particular Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(5)]. In addition, in the specific area of export refunds, the abovementioned basic Regulation on beef and veal establishes a direct link between eligibility for such refunds and compliance with animal welfare standards.

Indeed, the last subparagraph of Article 33(9) of that Regulation stipulates that the payment of the refund for exports of live animals shall be subject to compliance with the provisions established in Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.

3. It is not the responsibility of the Council to monitor implementation by the Member States of its own acts. This responsibility was conferred by the EC Treaty on the Commission, which is also authorised to submit to the Council and the European Parliament proposals it might deem appropriate for rectifying the alleged shortcomings to which the Honourable Member refers.

4. Furthermore, right to enter the profession falls within the competence of the Member States, which are therefore responsible for checking whether the relevant provisions laid down to this end are properly implemented and for imposing penalties should any deficiencies be detected.

Moreover, there are no statistics on livestock premiums paid in the European Union to farmers who might have mistreated their animals.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 312, 20.11.1998, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

(5) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.