WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Cost of combating and preventing BSE in the European Union

1. Can the Commission indicate the approximate costs of BSE tests as carried out in the different Member States of the EU?

2. Can the Commission state by whom those costs are borne in the different Member States of the EU: by cattle owners, by processing undertakings, by the consumer, or by regional or national governments?

3. Can the Commission state what rules are applied in the different Member States of the EU to compensation to farmers whose holdings have been infected by BSE (destruction of livestock, compensation for loss of earnings)?

4. Can the Commission state who pays for the destruction of the carcasses of BSE-infected herds?

5. Can the Commission state what the costs are of the non-use followed by destruction of animal meal, and by whom those costs are borne in the different Member States of the EU?

6. Does the Commission consider that it can be concluded from the answers to the above questions that cattle holders in the EU are operating under equal conditions of competition?

Answer given by Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

1. At present, the Commission does not have information concerning all Member States. On the basis of available information, costs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)-detection (sampling at slaughter line, transportation, purchase of test-kit, laboratory analysis, etc) are estimated by Member States to vary from ca 43 to 90, going up to 350 in the United Kingdom.

2. Member States have introduced different systems for financing these costs. In some Member States, they are fully paid by the government or regional authority. In other Member States, producers and/or slaughterhouses and/or all operators in the chain pay part or all of the costs. The Community participates at a rate of 100 % of the costs (VAT excluded) of the purchase of the test kit and reagents, up to a maximum of 15-30 per test, depending on the target group where the test was carried out.

3. Several Member States have notified. State aid regimes compensating farmers for the the value of animals destroyed because a case of BSE has been detected on the farm, as well as for the cost of sanitary measures necessary on such a farm, for restocking the herd, and possibly aid for income foregone before and during restocking. Member States frequently also take over the cost of the destruction of the animal, and costs linked to this like transport costs. Since 1 July 2001, Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies(1) provides that owners shall be compensated without delay for the loss of the animals that have been killed or products of animal origin destroyed following detection of a positive BSE case.

4. Member States can arrange who is to bear the costs for the destruction of animal carcases struck with BSE. The Commission does not have an overview of how this is financed in the different Member States. In case State aid is involved, a notification to the Commission in conformity with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty would be required, in order to assess the compatibility of the measure with State aid rules.

5. The Commission does not have concise information on this point. As a matter of example, in the United Kingdom the cost of over-thirty months meat and bone meal (MBM) destruction is in the range of GBP 60,00 to 90,00 per tonne. As to who covers the costs, reference is made to the reply to question 4.

6. Longer-lasting substantial differences between the level of public funding for these measures may very well have an impact on the relative competitive position of producers. This is why control and review by the Commission of all State aids is essential, in order to ascertain that possible distortions of competition caused by a State aid are outweighed by positive effects of the aid.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.