Special Report No 1/2000 on classical swine fever, together with the Commission's replies
Date: 2000-03-23
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU Member State, animal plague, market support, swine, veterinary legislation

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF AUDITORS

SPECIAL REPORT No 1/2000

on classical swine fever, together with the Commission(cid:146)s replies

(pursuant to Article 248(4) second subparagraph, EC)

(2000/C 85/01)

CONTENTS

Paragraph

Page

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commission management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implementation by the Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Principal features of the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The scope of the Court(cid:146)s audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 to 9

1 to 7

8 to 9

COMMISSION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 to 42

Combating classical swine fever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 to 12

Eradication and surveillance programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Contingency plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 to 15

Vaccination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 to 19

Dealing with outbreaks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 to 23

Notification of animal movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 to 29

Exceptional market support measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 to 31

On-the-spot controls by the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 to 36

Community financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 to 42

IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 to 76

Veterinary measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 to 65

Origin of the 1997/1998 epidemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 to 45

Preventive killing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46 to 52

Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 to 62

The Dutch (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 to 65

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

10

10

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

15

15

15

15

16

17

C 85/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

Paragraph

Page

Exceptional market support measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 to 76

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

Audit trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 to 68

Cull sows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 to 70

Canning in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 to 73

The insemination ban in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 to 76

FOLLOW-UP OF THE 1995 ANNUAL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 to 81

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82 to 85

The Commission(cid:146)s replies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

18

18

18

18

19

19

20

21

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/3

SUMMARY

Implementation by the Member States

Commission management

A total of ECU 570 million for exceptional market support mea-
sures and ECU 80,5 million for veterinary measures has been
charged to the 1997 and 1998 budgets (see Table 1).

Particular problems have been encountered with regard to pre-
ventive killing. In the Netherlands, the temporary suspension of
preventive killing is believed to have contributed towards the
spread of the disease and the subsequent cost to the Community
budget of at least ECU 135 million (see paragraph 49). In Spain
the use of (cid:145)partial(cid:146) preventive killing cannot be regarded as a vet-
erinary measure (see paragraph 51).

The Commission(cid:146)s action in the veterinary sphere is essentially to
ensure proper application of Community legislation, and of Direc-
tive 80/217/EEC in particular. However, the recent epidemic has
highlighted the need to modify the Directive in order to take
account of experience and changes in scientific knowledge.

The Dutch (cid:145)overname(cid:146) (buying-up) scheme was poorly adminis-
tered (see paragraph 56), the healthy status of the pigs concerned
and the voluntary and partial nature of the scheme mean that
ECU 70 million included in the claim for Community financing
under veterinary measures has been rejected by the Commission
as ineligible (see paragraphs 63 to 65).

In the veterinary sphere, eradication and surveillance plans have
not kept the Community free of classical swine fever (CSF) and the
Commission did not ensure that Member States submitted con-
tingency plans for dealing with CSF after the 1993 to 1995 epi-
demic. The Community(cid:146)s animal movement notification system
(Animo) has failed to provide vital information at crucial times
and must be modified in order to enable Member States to use it
when fighting epidemics. The Community(cid:146)s non-vaccination
policy, which is based on the nature of vaccines and the cost of a
vaccination programme compared to eradication, is called into
question by the development of marker vaccines (not available on
the market as at the end of 1998), and the very high costs associ-
ated with the 1997 to 1998 epidemic. The Commission should
update its cost-benefit analysis and use it for the debate on policy
changes.

Payments to producers cannot be verified in a large number of
cases because valuations were not adequately documented (see
paragraph 53), the weights of the animals were often estimated
and animals buried on farm were not weighed (see paragraph 59).
Rates of compensation for certain categories of animal such as
gilts and sows were not always documented (see paragraph 61).

The use of municipal pits to bury 140 000 pigs in Spain (see para-
graph 50) and the use of cold stores in the Netherlands meant
that it was not always possible to trace batches of pigs from the
farm to the rendering plants/cold stores. The problems with regard
to tracing batches of animals through to final destruction are
common to the market measures, but are more serious given the
number of animals involved (see paragraph 57).

The unit responsible for the management of agricultural expen-
diture carried out several inspections in the Member States, as a
result of which payments to the Netherlands have been reduced
by ECU 20 million for alleged breach of Community legislation
(see paragraph 39) and the balance payable to Spain may be
reduced by up to ECU 6,6 million for ineligible expenditure (see
paragraph 41). The clearance of accounts unit has also carried out
controls in the Member States, but has yet to determine any finan-
cial consequences on conformity grounds.

Under exceptional market support measures the Management
Committee approved successive increases in the initial ceilings
from 1,1 million to 10,8 million animals (see paragraph 31). A
number of categories of pigs and weight bands were introduced,
as well as specific schemes (canning and insemination ban), at the
request of the Member States concerned.

Conclusion

Since the 1993 to 1995 epidemic, progress has been slow in
developing a specific strategy to tackle subsequent outbreaks of
the disease. In the meantime the Community has had to face its
worst ever epidemic of CSF. Emphasis on other problems in the
veterinary sphere (establishment of the free internal market and
BSE) meant that CSF contingency plans were not given the prior-
ity the 1997 to 1998 epidemic demonstrated that they deserved.
The Court urges the Commission to dedicate the resources neces-
sary to complete the revision of Community legislation and policy
in this area as quickly as possible. Member States must also assume
their responsibility for effective implementation of Community
legislation in order to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of CSF
causing epidemics on such a scale.

C 85/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

INTRODUCTION

Principal features of the market

Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany
(see Table 5). For all these areas, with the exception of Catalonia,
livestock density exceeds the level that is generally accepted as
ecologically sustainable (1,4 livestock units per hectare) (3).

1. The common market organisation for pigmeat traditionally
provides only limited market support for the sector, but when
there is an epidemic of classical swine fever (CSF) Community
expenditure on exceptional measures to support the market and
veterinary measures results in a quantum increase in the charge
to the budget (see paragraph 37). A total of ECU 570 million for
exceptional market support measures and ECU 80,5 million for
veterinary measures has been charged to the 1997 and 1998 bud-
gets (see Table 1).

2. EU production, is around 16,6 million tonnes per annum. The
pig population has remained relatively stable during the 1990s at
around 119 million head. The removal of 12 million pigs (see
Table 2) from the market during the 1997 to 1998 CSF epidemic
led to a reduction in supply equal to 1 million tonnes of pigmeat.
Consequently, there were substantial price increases in the first six
months of 1997 and the average Community market price for pig
carcases remained very high (ECU 164/100 kg) during the whole
of 1997.

3. Per capita consumption has been increasing steadily and is
predicted to continue along this trend (see Table 3). The EU is self-
sufficient in pigmeat production (1994 = 106 % (1)) and is the
world(cid:146)s largest exporter. In order to ensure access to world mar-
kets, pigmeat must come from an area with a (cid:145)high health status(cid:146)
as defined by the International Office of Epizootics, i.e. free from,
inter alia, CSF.

4. Prices saw a dramatic upsurge during 1996 (13 %) partly as a
result of the BSE crisis (consumers switched from beef to pork).
During 1997, prices also increased as a result of reduced supply
due to CSF. In 1998, prices have fallen back just as sharply due to
a combination of factors(cid:151) greatly increased domestic supply and
a decline in third country exports (cid:151) which have triggered private
storage aid (2).

6. More generally pig production has become highly specialised,
piglets are bought in as cheaply as possible and fattened on a stan-
dard diet to a specified weight within strictly determined produc-
tion cycles and are then sold on the open market for EU con-
sumption or for export. This is only profitable on an increasingly
larger scale as margins are squeezed as a result of competition at
home and abroad. This has resulted in significant increases in the
average number of pigs per holding and the proportion of large
holdings. During the period 1990 to 1995 the average number of
pigs per holding in Belgium increased by 68 %, in Spain by 59 %
and in the Netherlands by 36 %. The increase in Germany was less
marked (19 %) due to the restructuring that took place after uni-
fication (see Table 5).

7. Specialisation in Member States such as the Netherlands results
in the movement of piglets from farm to farm, whereas closed
systems, such as the one dominant in Denmark, minimise the
number of movements and thereby the risk of spreading disease.
The Dutch authorities are well aware of the consequences of high-
density pig farming and have recently passed legislation designed
to reduce the number of pigs in such areas. A system of pig
entitlements has been introduced from 1998 and imposes a gen-
eral 10 % cut on the number of pigs kept per holding. As of 1
January 2000 the pig entitlements allocated for 1998 would have
to be reduced by 15 %. In addition the financial impact on the
State of any future outbreaks of CSF would be mitigated by a levy
on pig producers introduced in 1998 to cover the costs of com-
bating animal diseases on pig holdings. However the legislation
has been successfully challenged in the courts by pigmeat pro-
ducer organisations. Early in 2000, the Dutch Government will
present new draft legislation to the Dutch Parliament for approval.
According to the Dutch authorities, this new proposal will take
account of the outcome of the court proceedings.

The scope of the Court(cid:146)s audit

5. Community production is highly concentrated (cid:150) 70 % of the
pig population is in five Member States, 21 % in Germany alone
(see Table 4). Within these Member States regional concentration
results in huge numbers of pigs being kept in close proximity. In
Spain, for example, one third of the total pig population is in
Catalonia, 95 % is in Vlaams Gewest in Belgium, 90 % in the east
and south of the Netherlands and 65 % in the three L(cid:228)nder of

8.
In the 1995 Annual Report the Court reported on measures
taken by the German and Belgian authorities to combat the 1993
to 1995 epidemic of CSF. For the 1997 to 1998 epidemic the
Court(cid:146)s primary objective has been to evaluate the management
of the crisis in the four Member States affected and at Commis-
sion level.

(1) Agricultural situation in the EU 1996.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/98 of 25 September 1998 (OJ

(3)

L 263, 25.9.1998, p. 12).

(cid:145)Health strategies to control swine infectious diseases: European expe-
rience(cid:146), Commission working document 30 January 1996 (VI/1715/
96).

.

.

2
3
3
2
0
0
0

Table 1

Expenditure 1997 to 1998

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Spain

TOTAL (B, D, NL, E)

EU-15

1997

1998

1997

1998

1997

1998

1997

1998

1997

1998

1997

1998

(million ECU)

0,1
0,2
3,1

3,4

2,0
5,4

0,0

1,1
1,1

6,8
0,3

7,3

1,2
1,9

85,6
5,5
228,3
34,3

4,5

84,1
18,8
9,3

1,8

33,6

8,0

35,8
0,2

14,4

3,1

353,7

116,7

35,4

44,0

14,4

7,0
10,1

31,0
384,7

32,4
149,1

35,4

7,0
51,0

6,8
87,9
5,7
272,3
34,3
0,0

407,0

33,0
440,0

6,8
87,9
5,7
272,3
34,3

13,7
1,9
119,9
19,0
9,3

163,8

407,0

47,5
211,3

33,0
440,0

16,2

15,3

2,8

4,2

2,9

2,0

7,1

7,9

29,0

29,4

72,2
0,2

13,7
1,9
119,9
19,0
9,3

163,8

47,5
211,3

69,9

CSF expenditure
Exceptional market support
B01-2 3 2 0 002 Germany
B01-2 3 2 0 007 Piglets
B01-2 3 2 0 008 Very young piglets
B01-2 3 2 0 009 Fattening pigs
B01-2 3 2 0 010 Other
B01-2 3 2 0 020 Non-insemination

Subtotal

Veterinary expenditure (1)
B2-5 1 0 6 (2)
Total CSF expenditure

Other expenditure
B01-2 3 0 Export refunds
B01-2 3 1 Private storage aid

Total

21,6

16,4

17,2

14,3

387,6

151,1

42,5

58,9

469,0

240,7

512,4

281,2

% of EU-15 total

4,8

4,0

67,9

12,8

89,4

100,0

(1) Excluding ECU 150 000 annual contribution towards the costs of the Community CSF reference laboratory and contributions towards Member States surveillance and eradication programmes (ECU 2 million in 1998).
(2) Included under B2-5 1 0 6 but not separately identified in the Commission(cid:146)s accounts.
Source: European Commission DG VI.

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C
8
5
/
5

C 85/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

Number of pigs killed under exceptional market support and veterinary measures

Table 2

Type

Spain (1)

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

Total

(1997 to 1998)

Market ceilings

Fattening pigs

Piglets (3)

Cull sows

Iberian pigs

Market claimed

Fattening pigs

Piglets

Cull sows

Iberian pigs

Market

Veterinary

Very young piglets

-

2 730 000

Regulation (EC)
No 2375/98

Regulation (EC)
No 541/98

Regulation (EC)
No 1030/97

Regulation (EC)
No 1497/97

695 000

2 585 000

510 000

3 800 000

11 000

11 500

25 000

-

102 500 (2)

48 000
110 000 (4)

-

-

-

84 000

3 466 500

94 000

4 562 000

-

-

-

2 730 000

36 000

11 500

Total

1 227 500

9 140 000

260 500

178 000

10 806 000

Very young piglets

-

2 693 733

692 877

2 499 402

463 433

2 872 266

5 520

7 783

0

-

55 634

6 860

109 999

-

-

-

25 285

3 273 198

9 841

3 462 399

-

-

-

2 693 733

5 520

7 783

1 169 615

8 065 401

320 374

1 760 706

172 493

197 612

35 126

9 442 635

66 782

2 345 474

Market + veterinary

1 489 989

9 826 107

370 105

101 908

11 788 109

% (rounded)

13

84

4

-

-

(1) As at 22.11.1998.
(2) Includes pigs used for canning under Regulation (EC) No 546/97.
(3) Includes young piglets.
(4) In respect of 1998 only (cid:151) Regulation (EC) No 370/98 market measure refers.
Source: DG VI(cid:151)D3 for market measures.

.

.

2
3
3
2
0
0
0

Table 3

EU pigmeat supply balance

EU-12

1990

1991

1992

13 533,97
12 882,53

73,64
700,76

105,06
39,69

14 285,45
13 785,80

68,21
603,72

103,65
40,24

14 345,24
13 926,02

85,23
466,92

103,00
40,46

(1 000 t carcase weight equivalent)

EU-15

1994

15 208,75
14 255,33

25,39
907,51

106,86
41,08

1995

16 087,57
15 191,44

82,51
771,60

106,01
41,06

1996

16 382,42
15 482,14

94,29
861,06

105,71
41,72

(1 000 t carcase weight equivalent)

ACTUAL

1993

15 145,40
14 299,69

21,77
850,09

106,13
41,37

EU-15

FORECAST

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

16 570,00
15 770,00

16 684,00
15 908,00

16 775,00
16 034,00

16 871,00
16 165,00

16 998,00
16 317,00

17 136,00
16 455,00

17 276,00
16 594,00

17 417,00
16 735,00

17 539,00
16 857,00

50,00
850,00

105,07
42,20

65,00
841,00

104,88
42,44

80,00
821,00

104,62
42,68

95,00
801,00

104,37
42,88

110,00
792,00

104,17
43,17

110,00
792,00

104,14
43,41

110,00
792,00

104,11
43,66

110,00
792,00

104,08
43,90

110,00
792,00

104,05
44,15

Pigmeat (1000 t)

Usable production
Gross consumption

Total imports
Total exports

Self-sufficiency (%)
Consumption (kg/person)

Pigmeat (1000 t)

Usable production
Gross consumption

Total imports
Total exports

Self-sufficiency (%)
Consumption (kg/person)

NB: Production = Gross indigenous production + net imports of live animals (1990 excludes East Germany).
Sources: 1990 to 1996: Eurostat ZPA1. 1997 onwards: European Commission, Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector, COM(98) 434 final.

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C
8
5
/
7

C 85/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

Total of the EU pig population (1993 to 1997), December

Table 4

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

119 293

117 569

115 972

118 376

118 650

6 876

10 870

26 075

1 143

18 188

14 291

1 487

8 348

72

6 984

10 864

24 698

951

18 296

14 593

1 498

8 023

68

7 153

10 709

23 737

917

18 125

14 530

1 542

8 061

73

7 117

11 079

24 283

904

18 572

14 976

1 665

8 090

77

7 498

11 494

24 795

938

19 269

15 473

1 717

8 155

74

13 991

13 931

13 935

14 253

11 437

3 820

2 666

1 300

2 277

7 889

3 729

2 416

1 295

2 324

7 899

3 706

2 402

1 394

2 317

7 371

3 664

2 344

1 413

2 319

7 621

3 680

2 365

1 444

2 353

7 959

(1 000 head)

1997 (cid:151) % of
EU total

6

10

21

1

16

13

1

7

-

10

3

2

1

2

7

EU-15

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Source: Eurostat ZPA1 except figures in italics taken from Commission report on the situation in the pigmeat sector (COM(98) 434 final).

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/9

Regional concentration of pigmeat production in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands

Table 5

Number of pig holdings

Number of pigs

Average number of pigs per holding

% change

Country (region)/holding size

Belgium

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Vlaams Gewest and Brussels

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Germany

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Baden-W(cid:252)rttemberg
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

BayernBavaria
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Brandenburg

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Niedersachsen Lower Saxony

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Nordrhein-Westfalen
Rhine-Westphalia
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

North

Sachsen-Anhalt/Saxony-Anhalt

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Schleswig-Holstein
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Spain

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Arag(cid:243)n

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Castilla-Le(cid:243)n
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Cataluæa

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Andaluc(cid:237)a

‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Netherlands
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Oost-Nederland
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

Zuid-Nederland
‡ 400 pigs
< 400 pigs

1990

1995

1990

1995

1990

19 970
5 220
14 750

16 100
5 070
11 030

277 710
16 910
260 800

48 840
1 350
47 490

87 210
1 720
85 490

2 200
470
1 730

1 520
440
1 080

46 720
5 190
41 530

36 710

4 840
31 870

1 980
390
1 590

5 950
1 240
4 710

12 940
5 640
7 300

11 250
5 470
5 780

206 370
17 590
188 780

35 870
1 590
34 280

65 620
2 110
63 510

1 930
270
1 660

1 080
220
860

33 620
5 620
28 000

27 210

5 290
21 920

1 470
240
1 230

4 050
1 130
2 920

6 657 180
5 166 870
1 490 310

6 353 860
5 024 930
1 328 930

7 240 950
6 277 760
963 190

6 964 930
6 101 630
863 300

27 353 820
15 391 680
11 962 140

24 297 510
14 755 220
9 542 290

2 203 520
808 530
1 394 990

3 669 400
1 042 760
2 626 640

1 310 140
1 278 270
31 870

1 273 210
1 242 990
30 220

7 068 540
3 631 720
3 436 820

2 256 840
1 101 670
1 155 170

3 613 140
1 345 960
2 267 180

737 560
710 870
26 690

597 250
590 480
6 770

6 873 770
4 186 660
2 687 110

5 834 160

5 624 790

3 089 410
2 744 750

1 192 360
1 176 430
15 930

1 436 810
926 350
510 460

3 538 550
2 086 240

690 020
665 770
24 250

1 289 430
944 660
344 770

310 920
7 490
303 430

209 860
7 910
201 950

11 840 650
7 948 400
3 892 250

12 699 750
9 650 660
3 049 090

10 690
1 240
9 450

58 370
700
57 670

13 890
3 150
10 740

23 240
550
22 690

29 300
11 020
18 280

14 050
4 010
10 040

10 230
5 970
4 260

4 880
1 360
3 520

38 130
760
37 370

10 550
3 370
7 180

14 170
520
13 650

22 390
10 420
11 970

10 620
3 910
6 710

8 230
5 500
2 730

1 512 110
1 201 410
310 700

1 787 340
935 670
851 670

3 825 290
3 026 760
798 530

1 048 850
607 450
441 400

1 800 710
1 521 200
279 510

1 781 480
1 130 550
650 930

4 390 480
3 795 370
595 110

1 003 810
702 620
301 190

13 845 840
11 148 430
2 697 410

14 397 460
12 446 030
1 951 430

4 819 070
3 363 140
1 455 930

7 628 530
6 866 910
761 620

4 845 340
3 745 010
1 100 330

8 211 000
7 696 990
514 010

333
990
101

395
991
120

98
910
46

45
599
29

42
606
31

596
2 720
18

838
2 825
28

151
700
83

159

638
86

602
3 016
10

241
747
108

38
1 061
13

141
969
33

31
1 337
15

275
961
74

45
1 104
19

473
1 012
148

343
839
145

746
1 150
179

NB: Only regions with over 1 million pigs in 1990 or 1995 are listed.
Source: Eurostat (cid:151) Eurofarm.

1995

560
1 113
132

619
1 115
149

118
839
51

63
693
34

55
638
36

382
2 633
16

553
2 684
8

204
745
96

207

669
95

469
2 774
20

318
836
118

61
1 220
15

369
1 119
79

47
1 488
17

416
1 126
83

71
1 351
22

643
1 194
163

456
958
164

998
1 399
188

1990 to 1995

67,9
12,5
30,6

56,9
12,5
24,0

19,5
(cid:150) 7,8
10,2

39,5
15,7
14,7

30,9
5,2
16,2

(cid:150) 35,8
(cid:150) 3,2
(cid:150) 12,7

(cid:150) 34,0
(cid:150) 5,0
(cid:150) 71,9

35,1
6,5
16,0

30,1

4,8
10,5

(cid:150) 22,1
(cid:150) 8,0
96,8

31,8
11,9
8,9

58,9
15,0
17,7

160,9
15,4
141,5

52,6
11,3
17,9

51,1
17,2
11,5

57,0
22,3
13,4

36,1
18,1
10,5

33,0
14,2
13,1

33,8
21,7
5,3

C 85/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

On-the-spot controls concerning CSF measure (1997 to 1998)

Table 6

European Court of Auditors

Clearance unit

Management of agricultural
expenditure unit

FVO

Netherlands

2/1998
4/1998
9/1998

3/1997
11/1997
2/1998 (1)

7/1997
8/1997
9/1997
9/1998 (1)

2/1997
4/1997
6/1997
11/1997
3/1998

Spain

6/1998

Belgium

9/1998

Germany

5/1998
10/1998

9/1998 (1)

6/1998

9/1998

10/1997
3/1998

1/1998

3/1998

(1) In conjunction with the European Court of Auditors.

9. As well as visiting the Member States the Court has visited the
Community CSF Reference Laboratory in Hanover. Many of the
Court(cid:146)s observations in this Report reflect the findings of the
Commission(cid:146)s own control services, with which the Court has
worked in close cooperation. A list of all the visits made in this
context by the Commission and the Court during 1997 to1998 is
in Table 6.

COMMISSION MANAGEMENT

Combating classical swine fever

veillance programmes primarily aimed at controlling the spread
of the disease in wild boar, contingency plans and the possible use
of vaccination. Once an outbreak has occurred protection and
surveillance zones are put in place, the pigs on the infected hold-
ing are killed and movement restrictions remain in place for fixed
periods. In the case of multiple outbreaks movement restrictions
may be in place for relatively long periods, thereby preventing
producers from marketing their pigs. In these circumstances the
pigs are purchased under exceptional market support measures.
Monitoring the movement of pigs across borders from farms that
may turn out to be suspect areas is essential to avoid the epidemic
spreading in this way. The animal movement system (Animo) is
used for this purpose. The veterinary and market support mea-
sures are subject to on-the-spot controls by various Commission
services.

10. The pig is the only natural host for the classical swine fever
virus. The disease has never been reported in human beings.
Depending on the virus strain it can cause a high degree of mor-
tality among infected pigs. The main symptoms are a rise in body
temperature, depression, loss of appetite, conjunctivitis, stilted
gait, incoordination and diarrhoea. CSF has an average incubation
period of seven days, is highly contagious and easily transmitted.
By the end of the 1980s the EU wild boar population was CSF-
free but has since become infected again, possibly as a result of
eating contaminated leftovers. CSF in wild boar does not die out
naturally and is now endemic in the wild boar populations of Ger-
many, Italy and a part of France. Wild boar transmit the virus to
domestic pigs.

12. Since 1990, there have been 1 445 outbreaks of the disease
in the EU (see Table 7). These outbreaks have increasingly occurred
in areas of high density. The traditional instruments of control
developed to tackle the problem in low-density areas are less
effective in high-density areas. High-density concentration and
specialisation combine to pose a threat to the environment and
increased risk of contagion in the event of epidemics such as CSF.
The Commission believes that the potential for effective disease
control in such situations is likely to deteriorate unless livestock
density is reduced (1).

11. CSF may be tackled on two fronts: prevention and dealing
with outbreaks after they have occurred. On the preventive front
the Community has three basic instruments: eradication and sur-

(1) Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the EU with a view
to possible changes to structural support measures, COM(98) 434
final, 27.7.1998.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/11

Table 7

Number of outbreaks of CSF

Market year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Country

Belgium
Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Netherlands
Austria

113
118

4
15
2

6

1
15

13

1
20
5

7
105

1
12

48
117

25

1

Total

252

22

39

125

191

54

42

2

98

4

49

2

55

Source: European Commission DG VI. A.4 - ADNS 1998 data is updated to 10.12.1998.

8
46
78

55
424

11
21

15
5

Total 1990
to 1998

176
474
99
7
248
436
5

611

52

1 445

Eradication and surveillance programmes

13. The most recently approved programmes are for the eradica-
tion of CSF in feral pigs in Varese and Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania and Lower Saxony (1). Austria, Germany and
Italy are the only Member States that have had eradication and
surveillance programmes for CSF in domestic pigs during recent
years. The Netherlands did not have such a programme, the last
recorded cases before the 1997 epidemic were in 1992.

Netherlands, submitted to the Commission only in December
1997, were not approved until March 1999 (4). The Commission
should have ensured that Member States presented programmes
immediately after the 1993 to 1995 epidemic and that tests were
carried out, especially for those with a recent history of the dis-
ease. Failure to do so must be regarded as one of the reasons why
the Animo shortcomings (see paragraph 24) were not identified
sooner and for the diversity of measures taken by the Member
States.

Contingency plans

Vaccination

14. The Commission has stated that for outbreaks of diseases of
major importance such as CSF (cid:145)the responsibility for preparedness
rests primarily with the central veterinary administration of the
Member States, who through well rehearsed contingency plans
should be prepared to meet any challenge(cid:146) (2).

In 1977, the Commission published a paper by P. R. Ellis et
16.
al. entitled (cid:145)Studies on the epidemiology and economics of swine
fever eradication in the EEC(cid:146) (5) that prompted the decision taken
in 1980 to eradicate CSF by adopting a common policy of slaugh-
ter, together with the gradual abolition of routine vaccination.
Council Directive 80/217/EEC (6) laid down the procedure to be
followed in the event of an outbreak of CSF. By 1990, all vaccina-
tion had ceased.

15. Council Directive 80/217/EEC (3) (Article 14) required Mem-
ber States to submit CSF contingency plans by 1 January 1993 for
Commission approval. The Commission (cid:145)shall examine the plans
in order to determine whether they permit the desired objective
to be attained ... [and] ensure they are compatible with those of
other Member States(cid:146). The plans from Belgium, Spain and the

(1) Commission Decisions 98/399/EC of 8 June 1998 (OJ L 176,
20.6.1998, p. 36) and 1999/39/EC of 21 December 1998 (repealing
Decision 96/552/EC) (OJ L 11, 16.1.1999, p. 47) respectively.
(cid:145)Health strategies to control swine infectious diseases: European expe-
rience(cid:146), Commission working document 30 January 1996 (VI/1715/
96).

(2)

(3) OJ L 47, 21.2.1980, p. 11.

17. The main arguments against the use of vaccination at that
time were based on the nature of the vaccines themselves (live-
virus type vaccines require careful handling) and the cost of vac-
cination, given the rapid turnover (reproductive cycle) of the pig
population.

(4) Commission Decision 1999/246/EC of 30 March 1999 (OJ L 93,

8.4.1999, p. 24).

(5) EUR 5738e.
(6) OJ L 47, 21.2.1980, p. 11.

C 85/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

18. The problem with traditional live vaccines is that no sero-
logical distinction is possible between animals after vaccination
and those convalescent from natural infection. This has meant
that if a third country imported pigmeat from a Member State
which had used vaccines, when the meat was tested it could either
show CSF infected or simply be meat from a vaccinated animal.
The development of marker vaccines may overcome this funda-
mental problem. Whilst the Scientific and Veterinary Committee
fully supports the EU non-vaccination policy, it endorses the
restrictive use of marker vaccines in densely populated pig areas
as a means of reducing the virus spread and concomitant eco-
nomic losses. Marker vaccination is to be one of the tools used to
eradicate the disease and should not be used as a preventive mea-
sure. As such it would provide an alternative for pre-emptive
slaughter and destruction of animals in (cid:145)apparently uninfected
neighbourhood farms (mass slaughtering is expensive, ethically
questionable, wasteful of food resources and may destroy geneti-
cally valuable animals)(cid:146) (1). A recent trial involving the use of two
marker vaccines, for which an application for marketing authori-
sation had been made to the European Agency for Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (EMEA) is currently under evaluation.

19. No cost-benefit analysis of the use of vaccination has been
performed at Community level since1977. Since then the cost of
eradication has increased substantially, especially in high density
areas. The Court calculates that the total direct cost (i.e. Commu-
nity and national) of the epidemic in the Netherlands (excluding
veterinary costs for 1998 not claimed as at that time of the audit)
amounts to ECU 1 075 million. In Belgium the cost per pig killed
was approximately ECU 115, which is broadly in line with the
cost per pig killed during the previous epidemic (ECU 100) whereas
for the Netherlands it amounted to ECU 157 per pig killed. The
Commission should undertake a new comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis of alternative control and eradication strategies.

Dealing with outbreaks

20. Under the terms of Council Directive 80/217/EEC of 22
January 1980 (as last amended by Council Decision 93/384/
EEC) (2) which introduced Community-wide measures to control
CSF, Member States must notify all suspicion of outbreaks of CSF.
The Standing Veterinary Committee decides what action to take
in the event of a potential epidemic. This generally takes the form
of a Commission Decision banning the movement of pigs from
specified areas of the Member State affected. These decisions are
modified and repealed as the situation evolves.

21. Suspicion of CSF must be notified to the competent author-
ity and the holding placed under official surveillance (cid:151) no pigs

(1)

(cid:145)The use of marker vaccines in the control of infectious diseases in
particular(cid:146), CSF VI/8119/97, 17.9.1997.

(2) Council Decision 93/384/EEC of 14 June 1993, (OJ L 166 8.7.1993,

p. 34).

may enter or leave the farm. Surveillance measures may not be
lifted until CSF has been officially ruled out. If CSF is confirmed,
all pigs on the holding must be slaughtered without delay and be
destroyed. Any material that is likely to have been contaminated
must be treated in order to ensure the destruction of the virus.
The farm must be cleaned and disinfected and may be restocked
15 days afterwards. A detailed epizootiological report is required
for each outbreak. As soon as CSF has been confirmed on a hold-
ing, a protection zone with a radius of at least three kilometres
around the outbreak site should be established. This protection
zone forms part of the surveillance zone which is established at
the same time and must have a radius of at least 10 kilometres
around the outbreak site.

22. Within the protection zone pigs may not be moved from
holdings until 21 days after the disinfecting of the outbreak hold-
ing. The measures applied in the surveillance zone are similar in
nature but the restriction applies for seven days after disinfecting.
The protection zone may be lifted 30 days after completion of the
cleaning of the infected holding.

23. The implementation of these measures is the responsibility
of the Member States but is, to a large extent, dependent from the
outset upon the ability of Member States to trace consignments
of piglets/pigs that might originate in zones affected by CSF in
order to test them and/or eliminate them in order to prevent an
epidemic.

Notification of animal movements

24. Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 (3) concerns
veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community
trade in certain live animals (including pigs in general) and prod-
ucts with a view to the completion of the internal market. This
Directive is the legal basis for the computer-based animal move-
ment system (Animo), the ultimate aim of which is to ensure that
veterinary checks are carried out at the place of dispatch only.
Until this aim is achieved, Member States are permitted to carry
out spot checks at the place of destination. Whilst the Commu-
nity provided financial assistance to Member States in order to
enable them to acquire the necessary computer equipment, the
Commission does not manage the system (cid:151) this is done by a pri-
vate company.

25. Article 3 requires, inter alia, the Member State of origin to
ensure that animals that might have to be slaughtered under a
national eradication programme or cannot be marketed on their
own territory for health or animal health reasons are not dis-
patched to another Member State. The purpose of the destination
spot checks is to ensure that all the requirements of Article 3 have
been met.

(3) OJ L 224 18.8.1990, p. 29.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/13

26. According to an analysis of the causes of infection during
the 1993 to 1995 epidemic in Germany (1), whereas more than
half of all primary outbreaks were due to contact with wild boar,
more than a quarter of secondary outbreaks are due to trade in
pigs. The Spanish authorities have stated that one of the main
causes of the spread of the disease in Spain was the failure of the
Animo system.

for Belgium and on 22 May 1997 for Spain (2). These regulations
were repealed in accordance with progress achieved on the ani-
mal health side. Market support measures were closed for Ger-
many in October 1997 but a special measure for piglets was later
introduced (3). In Belgium the measures ceased in November 1997.
The Netherlands was not clear until July 1998 and Spain until
February 1999.

27.
In Belgium the veterinary service has carried out a compari-
son between the information recorded on Animo and that from
other sources. This showed that the Animo system suffers from
three significant weaknesses:

(a)

incompleteness of the recorded imports; only 81 % were noti-
fied via Animo;

(b) delays; in order for swift action to be taken in the case of, for
example, CSF-suspect pigs, notification must take place at the
latest on the day of delivery; only 7 % of Animo notifications
were received within this time;

(c)

inaccuracy; the number of pigs stated on the Animo notifica-
tion compared with the actual number delivered (confirmed
on farm or using other sources) differed in 26 % of cases.

28. Whilst there is no such comparative data for the crucial
period during which imports from the Netherlands introduced
CSF to Belgium, there is no reason to believe that the system was
performing any better at that time. A concrete example of the fail-
ure of the system was detected in one of the veterinary payments
examined by the Court. A consignment of 76 pigs imported from
the Netherlands for which there was no Animo notification was
delivered on 6 February 1997.

29. The Commission states that Animo was not intended to be
used by Member States to carry out 100 % checks at destination.
Nevertheless it should contain the whole population of move-
ments from which national veterinary services may select con-
signments for on-the-spot checks. Clearly where health or animal
health is at stake, such services should be in a position to identify
all risk consignments as soon as, for example, CSF is declared in a
Member State from which pigs are moved onto their territory.
Animo is the only Community-wide system that can fulfil this
function and the Commission should take the opportunity to
enhance the speed, accuracy and completeness of the system.

Exceptional market support measures

31. All regulations were discussed in the Management Commit-
tee for pigmeat. Initial ceilings were set for the number of animals
for each category that could be bought up under the measures;
these were increased at the request of the Member States from 1,1
million animals to 10,8 million (see Table 2). The market support
regulations were amended a total of 44 times, primarily to reflect
the spread of the disease (increased ceilings) but also to change
the categories/weights of animals eligible for support and the
rates of aid payable. In Spain special rates of aid were introduced
for cull sows and Iberian pigs. In the Netherlands a category of
very young piglets was added, an insemination ban was intro-
duced (see paragraph 74) and cull sows were also foreseen for
market support. Germany was granted approval for canning some
of the meat (see paragraph 71).

On-the-spot controls by the Commission

32. The Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the Commission
(DG XXIV) has the right to inspect implementation of Commu-
nity veterinary legislation. In view of the size of the epidemic in
the Netherlands it made repeated visits there.

33. After the Netherlands had declared 13 outbreaks, on 14 Feb-
ruary 1997 a Decision (4) was taken restricting the movement of
pigs from specified areas. The FVO responded quickly by visiting
the Netherlands in the same week. At this juncture the inspectors
concluded (cid:145)It is likely that there will be some further outbreaks of
CSF as the result of contacts. However, the overall situation at the
time of the mission appeared to be promising with the Nether-
lands services taking good control measures which were well
organised(cid:146). They also noted problems with collection centres,
tracing and the animal movement notification system (Animo)
due to the inadequacy of destination addresses provided by the
exporter.

30. Shortly after the veterinary measures were introduced in
each Member State, market support regulations were adopted: for
the Netherlands and Germany on 3 March 1997, on 1 April 1997

(1) Untersuchungen zu Vorkommen, Ausbreitung und Bek(cid:228)mpfung der
KSP in Deutschland 1993-95 (undated), Hanover Reference Labora-
tory.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 413/97 (OJ L 62, 4.3.1997, p. 6).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/97 (OJ L 62, 4.3.1997, p. 29).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 581/97 (OJ L 87, 2.4.1997, p. 11).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 913/97 (OJ L 131, 23.5.1997, p. 14).
(3) Commisision Regulation (EC) No 370/98 of 17 February 1998 (OJ

L 47, 18.2.1998, p. 10).

(4) Commission Decision 97/122/EC of 14 February 1997 (OJ L 45,

15.2.1997, p. 48).

C 85/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

34. The FVO returned to the Netherlands in April 1997, by which
time there had been 65 outbreaks. It was noted that the transmis-
sion of the disease via contaminated semen had not been given
due consideration by anyone and that not using preventive kill-
ing in the case of contacts was giving the virus further opportu-
nity to spread. In June 1997, the inspectors observed that elimina-
tion of entire herds could only be applied within certain limits
due to shortages in rendering capacity, the insemination ban had
been introduced too late to have an impact on the total number
of animals in the area when it mattered and that the market regu-
lations were encouraging producers to keep pigs and to force
their growth in order to achieve a good price. These aspects are
considered under implementation by the Member States.

35. The Commission(cid:146)s action in the veterinary sphere is essen-
tially to ensure proper application of Community legislation and
of Directive 80/217/EEC in particular. However, the recent epi-
demic has highlighted the need to modify the Directive in order
to take into account experiences and changes in scientific
knowedge. Moreover, measures taken by national authorities,
such as the Dutch decisions to suspend preventive slaughter (see
paragraph 49) and to buy up pigs for welfare reasons ((cid:145)overname(cid:146)
see paragraph 63), are not referred to the Commission for approval.

36. The unit responsible for the management of agricultural
expenditure also carries out inspections in the Member States.
They cover some of the same ground as the FVO, indeed some are
performed jointly, but have a considerable financial element as
well. Finally, exceptional market support expenditure is subject to
clearance of accounts controls.

Community financing

37. Expenditure charged to the Community budget in 1997 and
1998 in respect of traditional expenditure on the pigmeat com-
mon market organisation was ECU 142 million whereas expen-
diture on exceptional market support measures (70 % co-financed)
alone was four times greater (ECU 570 million). Expenditure met
from the veterinary fund in 1997 and 1998 (50 % co-financed) in
respect of 1997 measures was ECU 80,5 million. A summary of
expenditure for 1997 and 1998 is in Table 1. Payments from the
veterinary fund may take the form of reimbursements or advances.
Expenditure on CSF is included under the general heading for
emergency veterinary measures and as such should be separately
identified in the budget given the substantial sums involved.

not be paid until 1999. This is partly due to a shortage of appro-
priations, but also reflects the fact that a considerable amount of
expenditure may not be accepted by the Commission. If the claims
are met in full, the amount payable by the Community is ECU 49
million in respect of 1997 and ECU 34 million in respect of claims
for 1998.

39. The Netherlands presented a claim for NLG 195 million (ECU
88 million) on 26 September 1997 covering the first 217 out-
breaks of CSF in 1997. The Commission deducted 6 % for VAT
(ineligible) and applied a flat-rate deduction of 25 %, (some ECU
20 million) and paid ECU 31 million in respect of the first 195
outbreaks only. The 25 % penalty was based on the failure to
apply Article 3 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990
on expenditure in the veterinary field (1):

(a) the imposition of suitable measures to prevent the risk of the

spread of infection;

(b) the slaughter of animals of susceptible species;

(c) adequate compensation of producers;

(d) the creation of protection zones.

40. On 22 June 1998, the Dutch authorities submitted a (cid:145)new(cid:146)
claim for the whole of 1997. The amount of the claim was NLG
893 605 068 (ECU 402 million) for 50 % co-financing. The claim
covers 424 outbreaks and also includes NLG 153 million for the
(cid:145)overname(cid:146) measure. A second payment (ECU 32,4 million) was
made in January 1999 in respect of outbreaks Nos 196 to 360 (2).
Due to shortage of appropriations a further ECU 11 million pay-
able under the same Decision was paid from the 1999 budget.

41. On 2 October 1997, Spain submitted a provisional list of
payments in support of its claim for financial aid for veterinary
measures under the proposal that later became Commission Deci-
sion 98/63/EC of 9 December 1997 (3). This covered the first 57
outbreaks in Catalonia, Castilla y Le(cid:243)n, Murcia and Andaluc(cid:237)a.
According to the Decision, in order to receive the advance, Spain
had to submit an epidemiological report for each and every out-
break and contact holding and a financial report. On 16 June
1998, a (cid:145)final(cid:146) list was submitted together with other documents
required under the terms of the Decision. Rather than wait until
all the supporting documentation had been submitted, the Com-
mission considered it had sufficient grounds to pay a ECU 4 mil-
lion advance in January 1998 which was charged to the 1997
budget. The Commission may refuse up to ECU 6,6 million in
connection with certain measures it regards as ineligible (see para-
graph 51).

38. Belgium and the Netherlands received a first payment in
respect of 1997 expenditure in December 1997. Other payments
were made during 1998 but the balance in respect of 1997 will

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.
(2) Commission Decision 1999/18/EC of 22 December 1998 (OJ L 6,

12.1.1999, p. 18).

(3) OJ L 16, 21.1.1998, p. 43.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/15

42. The Guarantee Fund expenditure includes a charge of ECU
6,8 million to the 1997 budget as a result of Commission Regula-
tion (EC) No 76/97 of 17 January 1997 (1). Initially the slaughter
of 90 106 pigs in the Damme region of Germany between Decem-
ber 1993 and March 1994 was presented as a veterinary measure
but was rejected for Community financing because not all of the
criteria for such measures had been met. Under this Regulation
the purchase of 63 074 of these pigs (70 %) is treated as (cid:145)excep-
tional market support measures(cid:146) to be borne by the Community
budget, i.e. ECU 2 million more than it would have cost had it
been accepted as a veterinary measure. A similar practice had
been adopted in respect of Belgium in January 1996 (2) for com-
pensation paid for the purchase of 40 633 pigs in December 1993:
the Court criticised this procedure in its 1995 Annual Report
(paragraph 3.26). It is not clear why it took a further year to reach
the same conclusion for Germany. The reply given by the Com-
mission referred to the grey area between veterinary and market
support slaughtering. The problem of the grey area remains and
is the cause of much debate between the Commission and the
Member States.

from the Netherlands. Of the 354 consignments concerned, 212
originated in affected regions of the Netherlands (134 000 pigs).
The Animo system did not work during the period 1 January
1997 to 17 February 1997, it was therefore not possible for the
Spanish authorities to trace a large number of the animals imported
(see paragraph 26). Two farms were however identified as having
received such animals and the herds were killed as a precaution-
ary measure, although there is no documentary evidence to sup-
port the action taken on 24 February on one of the farms.
Although the first suspicion was recorded on 14 April 1997, the
Commission concludes that the CSF virus was active in Spain
from February to April 1997 without being detected. The first
two outbreaks occurred on holdings belonging to the same group
as one of the two farms cleared in February. This group, accord-
ing to the Commission, must be held responsible to a large extent
for the spread of CSF in Spain. The group experienced five out-
breaks and 13 preventive slaughter operations and received a total
of ECU 9,2 million from Community funds.

IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES

Veterinary measures

Origin of the 1997 to 1998 epidemic

45. The first Belgian outbreak was confirmed on 30 June 1997.
All but one of the later outbreaks are directly connected with it.
Because the farmer is suspected of late notification of the disease,
the authorities prudently decided to impose a 50 % cut on the
compensation paid and disciplinary procedures have been started
against the farmer(cid:146)s veterinarian. The farmer has taken legal action.

Preventive killing

43. The epidemic started in 1996 in Paderborn in Germany. The
producer concerned had a swill licence, but in order to save money
he did not heat the swill sufficiently to kill off the virus. Charges
have been brought against the two parties suspected of being
responsible for the outbreak of CSF. In addition, the Paderborn
Public Prosecutor(cid:146)s Office opened preliminary criminal proceed-
ings against a veterinary surgeon who was accused of spreading
the swine fever virus due to inadequate precautions in the course
of treatment of pigs on various farms. It dismissed the possibility
of criminal proceedings but his licence to practice has been
revoked. From Germany the virus spread to the Netherlands (no
proof of method) and thence to Belgium and Spain via the move-
ment of infected animals (3).

In Spain no cases of CSF had been recorded for almost 10
44.
years until February 1997. During the period 1 to 24 February
1997, some 220 000 piglets and 19 000 adult pigs were imported

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 76/97 of 17 January 1997 (OJ L 16,

18.1.1997, p. 74).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 151/96 of 29 January 1996 (OJ

L 23, 30.1.1996, p. 9).
Information from Community CSF Reference Laboratory.

(3)

46. Member States are not required to use preventive killing but
if they do so, the policy should be soundly based from both the
technical and scientific points of view. Belgium and Germany
made use of preventive killing during an earlier epidemic and it
was found to be one of the more effective ways of tackling the
problem in high-density areas. With regard to the 1997 to 1998
epidemic, Spain and the Netherlands chose to make use of pre-
ventive killing for this reason; in Germany it was not considered
as practicable, whereas Belgium applied it in the context of Article
6 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC to deal with the threat posed
by CSF on neighbouring farms in the Netherlands.

47. From the beginning of the CSF epidemic the Dutch authori-
ties adopted a policy of preventive clearing of farms within one
kilometre of the first two confirmed outbreaks in order to reduce
the risk of the disease spreading to surrounding farms. In Febru-
ary 26 farms were cleared (26 000 pigs) three of which were later
found to have been outbreaks (two classified as neighbourhood
contacts). Scientific opinion was divided at the time, some sup-
ported the policy of preventive killing, others were against it. On
14 February, on the basis of advice given by national experts, the
Dutch authorities decided to suspend preventive killing on the
grounds that it was obstructing the collection of important epi-
demiological information; preventive killing was resumed two
months later. During this period market support measures were
in operation, under which 690 000 animals were bought up.

C 85/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

48. By March 1997, it was known that 39 farms must already
have been infected in early February (conclusion of epidemiologi-
cal investigation). Had this been known at the time the measure
should have been applied quickly to all these farms. By the end of
the suspension period there had been 91 outbreaks and it was
obvious that preventive clearing was essential, but the shortage of
rendering capacity meant that preventive clearing could only at
first be carried out within a sub-optimal radius of some 500
metres and was delayed by up to 14 days following the decision
to clear, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the strategy. Of
the 1 182 farms preventively cleared 67 were later classified as
outbreaks. It was not extended to the desired one kilometre radius
until 12 May 1997. A million pigs were killed under the preven-
tive killing measure.

49. According to a simulation carried out by the Landbouwuni-
versiteit in Wageningen (1), had a policy of preventive killing been
rigorously maintained, far fewer farms would have had to be pre-
ventively cleared and the number of outbreaks would probably
have been around 70. On this basis the total associated compen-
sation costs would have been ECU 135 million lower and subse-
quent market support costs would have been lower. The Commis-
sion and the Court share the view that once a policy of preventive
killing has been adopted, it should be consistently applied and
that the Dutch decision to suspend it has had an impact on the
development of the disease and has consequently increased expen-
diture.

50.
In Spain a decision was taken on 7 May 1997 at a local (cid:145)CSF
experts(cid:146) meeting whereby all farms within a radius of 250 metres
of an outbreak were to be cleared of all pigs except reproductive
animals (sows and boars). Weekly veterinary checks on the ani-
mals(cid:146) temperature were required, but the Commission(cid:146)s inspec-
tion revealed that this was not systematically carried out. Some
20 % (ECU 6,6 million) of the total veterinary compensation
claimed by Spain relates to (cid:145)partial(cid:146) preventive killing, approxi-
mately half of this was paid to producers who later received com-
pensation under market support measures. Due to a lack of ren-
dering capacity the authorities were unable to meet the demand
from producers to sell animals under the market support mea-
sure, so they decided to open 11 municipal pits in which to bury
the carcases (in all some 140 000 pigs were buried in these pits).
This meant that what would have been a market measure could
not be treated as such and was financed as a veterinary measure
and labelled (cid:145)preventive(cid:146). Producers were paid more under the lat-
ter system.

51. The justification for partial preventive killing on veterinary
grounds is, at best, debatable. Moreover operations on successive
days were treated differently (cid:151) veterinary one day, market the

(1) Annex 8 to Final Evaluation Report by LNV (March 1998).

next. The Spanish authorities claim that the number of outbreaks
declined rapidly as a result of the introduction of the partial
slaughter policy, but the number of outbreaks was already in
steep decline before the measure was introduced. Partial preven-
tive killing has proved more expensive, in many cases it would
have been far cheaper to slaughter the entire herd as a preventive
measure rather than to partially clear the farm and later to buy up
animals under market measures (cid:151) saving ECU 300 per sow. The
Court shares the Commission(cid:146)s serious doubts about the eligibil-
ity of expenditure claimed under this measure.

52.
In Belgium, preventive killing is considered to be an effec-
tive way of reducing the risk of the disease spreading and has
become standard policy. All pigs on farms within a radius of one
kilometre of an outbreak are killed: six farms (3 647 pigs) close
to the Dutch border were preventively cleared. This type of mea-
sure is foreseen under Article 6 of Council Decision 90/424/EEC.
However, Belgium has also made use of partial preventive killing
under Article 6 of Council Directive 80/217/EEC which does not
explicitly refer to partial preventive killing. Batches of risk animals
(cid:151) those imported from the Netherlands (16 000) and sows (100)
inseminated with suspect semen imported from the Netherlands
(cid:151) were killed. Based on the assumption that the virus had not
spread in the Netherlands before 15 January 1997, it was decided
that imports after this date should be treated as risk animals.
However, only the batches of pigs originating in suspect areas
were killed other batches that were transported on the same lorry
but originating from a CSF-free area in the Netherlands were not
killed.

Compensation

In the Netherlands standard compensation rates were set by
53.
the authorities for some categories of pig but these were gener-
ally overridden by the valuer. Explanations of higher rates were
not documented and ex post statements by the valuers concerned
did not fully justify the amounts paid.

54. For certain categories of farms, the rate of aid payable for
sows fixed by the Dutch authorities was based on a rate per sow
plus an assumed number of 4,73 piglets. This led to some produc-
ers being paid compensation for many more piglets than were on
farm at the time of killing. In one of the cases examined by the
Court, one producer was effectively paid for 1 272 piglets more
than he had. The Commission has calculated that producers were
unduly paid for 175 000 piglets the financial consequences of
which would have been an additional charge to the Community
budget of ECU 10,7million had not this expenditure been rejected
by the Commission. The Commission also has evidence that some
of these (cid:145)missing(cid:146) piglets may have been sold under market mea-
sures shortly before the sows were eliminated under preventive
killing. In such cases the producers concerned were effectively
compensated twice for the same piglets.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/17

In the Netherlands if an incorrect amount has been entered
55.
on the valuation form but the correct amount is apparent from
the valuer(cid:146)s notes the legal viability of the claim depends on
whether the farmer could have had official knowledge of the notes.
The payment calculation was performed manually and compen-
sation by type of animal was not data-captured. In some cases a
comparison between the weekly guide prices and the values used
for payment revealed a difference of more than 20 %.

56. With regard to the (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme (see below), the review
by a private audit firm (Moret, Ernst and Young (MEY)) revealed
overpayments totalling some ECU 340 000 had been made. The
examination of a sample of transactions by the Commission and
the Court also revealed a number of other overpayments includ-
ing one case where compensation was paid twice for the same
piglets ((cid:145)overname(cid:146) and preventive).

In Belgium no documentation existed to explain the differ-
61.
ent rates used for partial slaughter and total clearing for sows and
piglets. The compensation rate initially set for gilts was increased
after protests by farmers. In some cases this resulted in a doubling
of the compensation payable. Gilts are destined to become repro-
ductive sows and are therefore inherently more valuable. On aver-
age, gilts received 75 % higher compensation than fattening pigs,
from which it is clear that the producer has a financial interest in
maximising the number of gilts rather than fattening pigs. More-
over, the point at which a piglet becomes a gilt is not clear. Ani-
mals as light as 25 kg have been classified as gilts for compensa-
tion purposes whereas under market support measures animals
weighing less than 26 kg were classified as piglets. According to
the document that describes the compensation procedure, on a
normal production farm the number of gilts is at most 20 % of
the number of sows. In specialised farms the percentage may be
higher of course. During the outbreak in Belgium, on farms that
were cleared, the percentage of gilts was close to 60 % i.e. three
times the norm.

57. For those animals sent to central killing locations there is no
possibility of following the audit trail until rendering. In their
analysis MEY have tried to reconstruct this trail. MEY concludes
that the 33 % difference between the 47,9 million kg taken in at
the central killing places and the 31,9 million kg taken in at the
rendering plants can be adequately explained by the fact that
many of the carcases were subjected to a process to remove mois-
ture prior to rendering. The Dutch authorities have also under-
taken to reconcile total intake and output for each killing loca-
tion.

In Spain, for certain categories of animal, the difference
62.
between the aid paid under veterinary measures and under mar-
ket support is significant. For example, veterinary aid for 15 kg
piglets killed on 14 July 1997 was ESP 8 575, whereas market sup-
port aid was 17 % higher. Both rates were more than twice the
actual market price. In the Netherlands the average rate of aid for
fattening pigs killed under the (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme was 20 % higher
than under the market measure. The magnitude of such differ-
ences cannot be justified.

58.
In Belgium valuation is performed by an expert valuer. The
number of animals of each category (weaner, non-weaner, sow,
gilt, fattening pig, breeding boar) is determined, and the average
weight of gilts, fattening pigs, and weaners is estimated. For mixed
batches the actual weights were not taken into account, although
they could have been used to produce a more soundly-based pay-
ment calculation. In three cases of mixed batches audited by the
Court the estimated weight used to calculate the compensation
was above the actual weight by as much as 18 %. Because of the
degressive kg tariff this resulted in overpayments of a lower mag-
nitude.

The Dutch (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme

63. The market support measures introduced under Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 413/97 of 3 March 1997 (1)were confined
to fattened pigs and piglets, but all categories of pig were subject
to the transport ban. Specialisation (see paragraph 7) meant that
overcrowding developed quickly and caused welfare problems on
many of the farms concerned.

59. Similarly in Spain, different categories of animal were weighed
together. It is therefore not possible to confirm that the correct
amount of compensation has been paid. This was invariably the
case for 67 500 animals buried on farm, for which veterinarians(cid:146)
estimates of weights were used to calculate the aid. The Court
established that overpayments totalling ECU 1,2 million occurred
as a result of failure to apply the correct rates of compensation.

64. This problem was aggravated by the fact that 1 675 holdings
had to be declared suspect, due to the infection in two artificial
insemination centres. At the beginning of the epidemic, spread of
CSF via artificial insemination was not considered a real possibil-
ity. Subsequent events pointed in that direction and the approach
adopted assumed that there was such a link (2).

In Germany a valuation committee establishes the value of
60.
the pig herd. Compensation is based on the estimated weight of
the live pigs and is not adjusted in line with the actual weight of
carcases received at the rendering plant. In the sample examined
the live weight estimate was up to 13 % higher than the carcase
weight.

(1) OJ L 62, 4.3.1997, p. 26.
(2) Experiments carried out at the Reference Laboratory in Hanover at
the beginning of 1998 suggest that the presence of the virus in semen
is very difficult to detect and is only found in very low quantities.
Because domestic boars do not manifest symptoms that are obviously
indicative of CSF, all centres have tended to treat the symptoms rather
than testing for CSF.

C 85/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

In March 1997, the Dutch authorities therefore decided to
65.
introduce a nationally funded veterinary support measure (the
(cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme) under which producers were compensated
for healthy pigs they chose to have killed. Nevertheless, in June
1998 the Dutch authorities included some ECU 70 million in
their claim for Community co-financing. Based on the findings of
a joint audit (September 1998) by the Court and the Commission,
in May 1999, the Commission rejected this part of the Dutch
claim on the grounds that the pigs concerned were healthy and
thus do not qualify under the terms of Article 3 of Commission
Decision 90/424/EEC and that the partial and voluntary nature of
the scheme does not meet the requirements of Council Directive
80/217/EEC.

January 1998, related to the accredited paying agency LASER for
1997. In the general conclusion MEY expressed a non-opinion for
expenditure related to the market measure, because LASER could
not provide a global assurance that all pigs that were bought up
were finally rendered or placed in cold stores. Consequently
LASER introduced a new system called (cid:145)VAS(cid:146) to record all pig
movements that took place under the measure. All relevant data
from the supporting documents were registered retrospectively
on the system. After an examination of that system, MEY drafted
a second report, dated 5 March 1998, lifting its reserve. However,
despite the introduction of the VAS, the fact that all or some of
the pigs from certain batches may have ended up in cold stores
means that a final reconciliation between the quantities delivered
and discharged can only be made when all stocks in cold stores
have been processed.

Exceptional market support measures

Cull sows

Purpose

66. The purpose of these measures is to remove pigs and piglets
in order to avoid overcrowding on farms located in protection
and surveillance zones where restrictions on the movement of
animals which apply as a result of veterinary measures threaten
serious disturbance of the pigmeat market. Although the animals
concerned are considered to be CSF-free when they are taken off-
farm, the carcases must be processed into products not intended
for human consumption, i.e. rendered. The price paid to the pro-
ducers for fattened pigs is equal to the market price of fattened
pigs over 120 kg in weight. Lighter pigs are bought at an abated
rate and piglets are bought at a fixed price per weight category.
The weight is taken as the average weight of the batch. Two mea-
sures were adopted that are an exception to this procedure (cid:151)
canning in Germany and the insemination ban in the Nether-
lands.

69. Cull sows were not initially eligible under the regulations
that adopted exceptional support measures for the market in pig-
meat in the four Member States. For the Netherlands, the basic
regulation was amended (1) to introduce aid for up to 25 000 cull
sows at 70 % of the farmgate price for grade E pigs. Despite the
fact that this measure was introduced at the request of the Dutch
authorities it was never implemented by them, on the grounds
that the welfare problem was not great enough to warrant buying-
in. Although the protocols used for the (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme did
not include the category of cull sows, 1 000 of these animals were
bought up under the scheme.

In Spain the basic regulation was also amended to introduce
70.
aid for up to 11 000 cull sows, but only 50 % (5 520) were bought
up under the measure. Cull sows were not included in the amend-
ments made to the basic regulations relating to Germany and Bel-
gium.

Audit trail

Canning in Germany

67.
In Belgium there is an adequate audit trail and the payment
files are generally well documented. The files examined in Cata-
lonia contain sufficient information to check that the payments
have been correctly calculated. However the Commission has
observed that in 10 % of the sample examined the number of ani-
mals removed according to the farm register was greater than the
number subsequently claimed. Using the recorded number would
have lowered the average weight of the batch, leading to either a
smaller payment or rejection of the claim. The Spanish authori-
ties did not require producers to submit copies of the registers
with their claims.

71. Commission Regulation (EC) No 546/97 of 25 March 1997
amending Regulation (EC) No 414/97 adopting exceptional sup-
port measures for the market in Germany (2) authorised the use
of pig carcases bought up under these measures for the produc-
tion of canned meat. Given that there is always some risk that
pigs may be infected with CSF, the meat must undergo heat treat-
ment. The canning operation must be subjected to a permanent
on-the-spot check of the meat processing by the authorities. To
avoid disturbance on the Community market and to protect tra-
ditional trade links with third countries the canned meat must be
exported outside the EU without refunds.

68.
In Germany evidence of rendering, as distinct from evidence
of delivery to the rendering plant, was lacking. In the Netherlands,
(Moret Ernst & Young) MEY issued an audit report dated 30

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1293/97 of 3 July 1997, (OJ L 176,

4.7.1997, p. 23).

(2) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 12.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/19

72. Compensation of DEM 8,2 million was paid for the purchase
of 19 392 pigs for the manufacture of canned products. 70 %
(DEM 5,7 million) has been paid by the Community.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE 1995 ANNUAL REPORT

73. Two products were made: 1 300 tonnes of (cid:145)Schinkenfleisch(cid:146)
and 708 tonnes of (cid:145)Schmalzfleisch(cid:146), i.e. 50 % of the 4 000 tonnes
permitted under the Regulation. The entire production was des-
tined for Russia. Exports to Russia began in week 20 of 1997 and
ended in week 34 of 1998 as a result of the economic crisis in
Russia. A total of 1 594 tonnes was exported, but the remaining
stock, 20 % of production, is in store at the production plant and
must be subjected to customs controls to ensure that it does not
enter the EU market.

The insemination ban in the Netherlands

74. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1564/97 (1) provided aid
for up to 220 000 sows subject to the ban on insemination intro-
duced from 3 June 1997 by the Dutch regulation Regulation ban-
ning pig breeding 1997 (cid:151) Regeling fokverbod varkens 1997. The
ban introduced on 3 June 1997 related to a designated area which
was considerably extended on 24 June 1997. The aid is payable at
ECU 32 per month per sow for the duration of the ban. Unlike
the other market measures, the ban was compulsory. However
producers could only claim the aid if they undertook to respect
all the conditions. Initially in order to qualify for the aid produc-
ers had to ensure that the sows were inseminated within four
months of the lifting of the ban. The Dutch authorities later rea-
lised that this would be impossible to enforce and the legislation
was amended accordingly (2), so that the sows must be kept on
the holding for the four months following the lifting of the ban,
but need not be inseminated. The ban was lifted on 12 November
1997.

75. The total number of sows claimed under the Regulation was
191 024. The Community contribution was limited to 70 % of the
lesser of either the aid paid or the expenditure which would have
been incurred in granting aid for the piglets that would have been
born during the period of the ban (less 116 days) if the sows had
been inseminated. The Dutch authorities have claimed ECU 9,3
million on the latter basis.

In its 1995 Annual Report the Court reported on measures
77.
taken by the German and Belgian authorities to combat the 1993
to 1995 CSF epidemic. The Court made four main recommenda-
tions (see paragraphs 28 to 31) which have not yet been fully
addressed.

78. The legislation (cid:145)should clearly state the conditions under which
veterinary and exceptional market support measures can be imple-
mented.(cid:146) Even if the Commission has meanwhile made clear its
position with regard to the non-eligibility of certain categories of
expenditure, some Member States persist in their claims for reim-
bursement. (see paragraphs 42, 50 and 63 to 66).

79.
(cid:145)The Commission should examine the appropriateness of different
rates of support for the two measures.(cid:146) Exceptional market support
measures have been financed at 70 % and veterinary measures at
50 %. Given the causal
link between veterinary and market-
support measures and difficulties experienced with classifying
some measures, it would be more appropriate to introduce a
common rate of co-financing at 50 %. This would remove any
incentive to (cid:145)reclassify(cid:146) schemes for financial advantage.

80.
(cid:145)Steps must be taken to ensure that the compensatory amounts paid
by the Member States to the producers are calculated using more precise
and homogeneous methods(cid:146). The rates of aid paid under veterinary
measures reflect the degree of discretion granted to valuers by
Member States. There are significant differences of rates of aid
(market and veterinary) both between Member States and within
them. This situation is exacerbated by the practice of mixed-batch
weighing, reliance on weight estimation and use of differing
weight categories (see paragraphs 53 to 58). Compensation for
gilts (see paragraph 61) and sows has varied widely and in the
Netherlands led to a situation whereby compensation for the lat-
ter reflected a notional number of piglets (see paragraph 53).
Whilst it may be acceptable for rates of compensation to differ by
Member State to reflect national market prices, it is not logical
that in some cases veterinary rates exceeded market measure rates
for the same type and weight of animal and in other cases the
opposite occurred (see paragraph 62).

76. The insemination ban aid is subject to IACS controls. In fact,
the Dutch authorities have inspected a far higher proportion (over
50 %) of claimants than the 10 % required. The results show a sig-
nificant number of total rejections because the sows had been
inseminated during the ban (34 out of 431 inspected). Given that
the sample selection criteria included a risk assessment, these
results should not be extrapolated.

81. The Commission should bring forward to the Council a review of
the regulations in force. It should examine the extent to which inten-
sive pig producers should contribute towards the measures to
combat classical swine fever: the Commission has produced a
report on the situation in the pigmeat sector (3) which focuses on

(1) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 25.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1688/97 of 29 August 1997 (OJ

L 239, 30.8.1997, p. 1).

(3) Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the EU with a view
to possible changes to structural support measures, COM(98) 434
final, 27.7.1998.

C 85/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

structural support measures. The report notes that the environ-
mental costs of intensive pigmeat production systems are not
internalised. This also applies to the costs of combating diseases
such as CSF but no mention is made of the possibility of making
producers meet some of these costs. The Dutch authorities have
nevertheless taken steps in this direction by introducing a levy
(see paragraph 7).

CONCLUSION

82. The cost-benefit analysis which served as the economic jus-
tification for the non-vaccination policy should be reassessed
given the very high cost of the 1997 to 1998 CSF outbreak and
the potential use of marker vaccines (see paragraphs 16 to 19).

83. The EU animal movement notification system failed to pro-
vide vital information necessary to combat the spread of the dis-
ease (see paragraph 24). In Spain CSF initially went undetected,
to spread (see paragraph 44). Certain
thereby allowing it
individuals/companies in Germany, Spain and Belgium may also
have contributed towards the spread of the disease (see paragraph
45). Failure to recognise semen as a vector of CSF aggravated an
already difficult situation in the Netherlands and had repercus-
sions in Belgium (see paragraph 52) and the decision to suspend

preventive clearing in the Netherlands increased the problem of
disease control (see paragraph 48).

84. The use of pig carcases to make canned meat for export
required a great deal of administrative control. One third of the
fattened pigs bought up under market support in Germany were
used in this way, but 20 % of the final product remains in store
with no prospect of an outlet in the short term (see paragraphs
71 to 73). Such measures, create more problems than they solve
and should not be permitted in future. Similarly the insemination
ban has proved difficult to control, a large number of claims were
found to be ineligible (see paragraph 76).

85. Since the 1993 to 1995 epidemic, progress has been slow in
developing a specific strategy to tackle subsequent outbreaks of
the disease. In the mean time the Community has had to face its
worst ever epidemic of CSF. Emphasis on other problems in the
veterinary sphere (establishment of the free internal market and
BSE) meant that CSF contingency plans were not given the prior-
ity the 1997 to 1998 epidemic has demonstrated that they deserved.
The Court urges the Commission to dedicate the resources neces-
sary to complete the revision of Community legislation and policy
in this area as quickly as possible. Member States must also assume
their responsibility for effective implementation of Community
legislation in order to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of CSF
causing epidemics on such a scale.

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 13 January 2000.

For the Court of Auditors

Jan O. KARLSSON

President

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/21

THE COMMISSION(cid:146)S REPLIES

SUMMARY

Whilst the Commission acknowledges that there is room for improvement, and that some measures have been
delayed because of the demands made by more urgent priorities, it considers that the Court does not give due
credit for the progress which has been achieved to date.

Although the Community has not been entirely free of classical swine fever (CSF), the evidence suggests that
the most recent outbreaks are linked to the persistence of CSF in the wild boar population, and eradication of
the disease in this group of animals presents particular difficulties, as noted in a recent report by the Scientific
Committee.

The animal movement notification system Animo is undoubtedly capable of improvement, and the Commis-
sion will ensure that the Court(cid:146)s remarks are taken into account when the future of this system is reviewed.
For the moment, the priority is to make sure that Animo continues to function after 1 January 2000. However,
a substantial part of the criticisms that the Court lays at the door of Animo are attributable to the use made
of the system by national officials rather than to shortcomings in the system itself. Some of them are, indeed,
not even related to Animo, but to inadequacies in national administrative procedures. It should be remembered
that Animo is essentially a cooperative venture between the Member States, and that the Commission plays
the role of facilitator rather than of primary manager of the system.

The Commission agrees that its non-vaccination policy should be re-examined at the time that marker vac-
cines become reliable and available. However, a trial of these vaccines earlier this year showed that their devel-
opment has not yet reached a stage where they can be used, and it is estimated that several more years(cid:146) work
remains to be done before they become a realistic option.

The Commission is currently financing a research project which is carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of alter-
native CSF control strategies, including the possible use of marker vaccines in the future. In the mean time, it
remains essential for international trade reasons to maintain the non-vaccination policy.

As the Court notes, the Commission(cid:146)s inspections in the Member States have resulted in the reduction or
refusal of requests for reimbursement of national expenditure on measures taken to deal with CSF outbreaks.
The work on these matters is still in progress. The Court has participated in the Commission(cid:146)s inspections in
one Member State in 1998 and there is no difference of opinion between the two institutions as to the ineli-
gibility of the expenditure which was then examined.

It was the Commission which introduced the concept of Community and national ceilings on the number of
animals eligible for exceptional market support measures, using the management powers at its disposal, dur-
ing the 1993 to 1994 outbreak of CSF. Changes in the ceilings are entirely natural, as nobody knows at the
outset how many animals will be affected by the outbreak. These decisions are taken by the Management Com-
mittee for Pigmeat, which is chaired by the Commission. Provisions are adopted after exchanges of views
between the Commission and the Member States concerned, both during a preparatory phase and during the
meetings themselves. However, the primary responsibility for carrying out these decisions lies with the Mem-
ber States.

The Commission will propose that the co-financing rate for market support measures in future is the same as
for veterinary measures, in order to avoid the difficulties described by the Court. It recalls, however, that for
many years exceptional market support measures were financed at 100 %, and that it is on the Commission(cid:146)s
initiative that the concept of co-financing has been gradually introduced.

C 85/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

The Commission shares the view that the producers should be made more responsible for the financial aspects
of the eradication of animal diseases, e.g. through some form of insurance scheme. Since this matter falls
within the competence of each Member State, the Commission intends, in the framework of the revision of
Community legislation on these issues, to evaluate the possibility of supporting the Member States in establish-
ing such schemes.

The Commission acknowledges that the work of ensuring that Member States submitted effective contingency
plans for dealing with CSF has taken longer than it intended. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the
demands made on the Commission(cid:146)s human resources by the preparatory work for the introduction of the
single market, at the same time as it became necessary to deal with the BSE crisis, meant that choices had to
be made in prioritising the work. Since well-defined plans for dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth dis-
ease were already in place, and could be used in the case of a CSF outbreak, it was considered that the prepara-
tion of CSF-specific plans could reasonably be delayed. Regrettably, the subsequent outbreak showed that the
veterinary authorities of the Member States (who in any case have primary responsibility for disease control,
in order to take the local epidemiological situation into account when controlling disease outbreaks) had
underestimated the virulence and infectiousness of the CSF virus, and were not as well-prepared as they should
have been.

The veterinary sector of the Commission has since been restructured and reinforced, both in the legislation
and inspection fields, making possible an increase of activity related to the adoption of CSF contingency plans,
taking into consideration the most recent problems encountered in the eradication of this disease. The Com-
mission(cid:146)s Food and Veterinary Office, based in Dublin, is now engaged in a series of missions to assess the
effectiveness of the Member States(cid:146) contingency plans.

The Commission shares the Court(cid:146)s view that the 1997 to 1998 CSF epidemic has underlined the need to
review some aspects of current legislation on this disease and its implementation, although it has been shown
that CSF can be controlled and successfully eradicated if current legislation is properly applied. Taking into
account experience and changes in scientific knowledge, however, the Commission will be making proposals
for a revision of this Directive in the coming months.

INTRODUCTION

Principal features of the market

1-7. The Commission shares in principle the Court(cid:146)s description
of the features of the market.

Regarding the structure of the pig industry, it should be noted
that the absence of direct support measures or direct income aids
for pig producers in the framework of the common agricultural
policy has contributed to specialisation and concentration. Pro-
ducers have been obliged to achieve economies of scale in order
to earn a living and to maintain competitiveness.

COMMISSION MANAGEMENT

Eradication and surveillance programmes

years in all areas of the Community identifiable as at higher risk
from CSF, in the framework of Council Directive 80/217/EEC and
Council Decision 90/424/EEC.

Eradication plans are being implemented in all areas of Germany,
France and Italy where CSF is endemic in the wild boar popula-
tion. A surveillance programme is also being carried out on
domestic pig holdings in Germany, in particular in areas at higher
risk from CSF. In the rest of the Community, the CSF virus is not
present in endemic form. If outbreaks occur, the contingency
plans (see below) should ensure proper implementation of the
measures established by legislation, and quick eradication of the
disease.

Over the past two decades the Commission has made efforts to
ensure that officially designated laboratories can diagnose CSF in
an accurate and uniform manner in all Member States. In addi-
tion, research projects have been financed that have led to the
development of molecular biology techniques able to distinguish
rapidly between different strains of CSF virus. Epidemiologists
thus have an important additional tool for tracing outbreaks of
disease.

13. Community initiatives aimed at more efficient prevention,
control and eradication of CSF have been undertaken in recent

The Commission is well aware of the problems related to the
presence of CSF in some central and east European countries and

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/23

Outbreaks of CSF in the European Union January 1997 to October 1999

(situation as at 25 October 1999)

s
k
a
e
r
b
t
u
o
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

J

F M A M J

J A S O N D J

F M A M J

J A S O N D J

F M A M J

J A S O

Months

the future enlargement of the Community. A number of measures
supported by the Commission under the Phare multicountry
veterinary diagnosis and control programme concern better pre-
vention and control of CSF, including:

(cid:151) the training of scientists, official veterinarians and field vet-
erinarians in diagnostic and border inspection procedures,

(cid:151) the supply of laboratory equipment and establishment of

common laboratory techniques,

(cid:151) the preparation of contingency plans.

After the epidemic of 1997 to 1998 (the last outbreak occurred
in Spain in July 1998), the incidence of outbreaks in the Commu-
nity declined appreciably (see table). Even if the precise origin of
the disease has not been fully clarified in some cases, the results
of the epidemiological investigations carried out following the
most recent outbreaks suggest a direct or indirect link with the
persistence of CSF in the wild boar population. Unfortunately, the
eradication of CSF in wild boar presents several difficulties, as
noted in the report of 10 August 1999 (1) by the Scientific Com-
mittee.

Contingency plans

Plans for the eradication of FMD were approved by the Commis-
sion in 1993 and 1995 (2). Their provisions apply to a large extent
also to CSF as they concern the resources required to deal with
disease emergencies, and the persons involved in eradication mea-
sures are basically the same, i.e. farmers, the pigmeat industry,
veterinarians, etc.

In view of the relevance of the analogous contingency plans for
FMD, the Commission considered that the available human
resources should be allocated in priority to activities related to the
establishment of the free internal market (3), and to dealing with
the BSE crisis. The veterinary sector of the Commission has since
been restructured and reinforced, both in the legislation and
inspection fields, making possible an increase of activity related
to the adoption of CSF contingency plans, taking into consider-
ation the most recent problems encountered in the eradication of
this disease. However, this work required more time than expected,
as some Member States delayed submitting plans and/or their
later amendments.

The relevant Commission department (the Food and Veterinary
Office in Dublin) has undertaken and is scheduled to undertake a
number of missions to assess the potential effectiveness of the
Member States(cid:146) contingency plans, either specifically or as part of
a disease control mission.

14-15. The similarity of the control and eradication measures to
be applied in cases of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and CSF is
acknowledged by Community legislation. Article 14b of Council
Directive 80/217/EEC states that the criteria to be applied mutatis
mutandis for drawing up the contingency plans for CSF are those
laid down for FMD.

(1) Document XXIV/B3/R09/1999 is available on the Internet at the fol-
lowing address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scah/
out24_en.pdf

The Commission has reminded Member States on a number of
occasions, during meetings of the Veterinary Committee, of the
need to check the national plans for dealing with outbreaks of
animal diseases.

(2) Commission Decisions 93/455/EEC and 95/194/EC.
(3)

In the early 1990s a lot of work was done by the Commission and the
Council to legislate on veterinary matters in order to ensure the estab-
lishment of the free internal market. This involved the adoption of
about 90 Directives. The Commission also had to coordinate the
efforts of the Member States to implement this legislation.

 
 
C 85/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

In addition, the Animo system will be subject to more checks on
its functioning and the implementation of relevant legislation by
the Member States.

Notification of animal movements

Vaccination

16-18. The non-vaccination policy adopted in the Community
for CSF is based on eliminating CSF-infected herds. However, it
also includes the possibility of vaccines being used in emergency
situations, even if severe restrictions on trade must be applied in
the areas where conventional vaccine is used. This is due to the
impossibility of distinguishing between vaccinated and infected
animals. This problem might be overcome if marker vaccines (and
reliable laboratory tests for the detection of vaccinated but then
infected animals) were available.

Following the advice of the Scientific Committee, the Commis-
sion financed a large-scale laboratory trial on the potential use of
marker vaccines, which was carried out in eight laboratories in
seven different Member States, and coordinated by the Commu-
nity Reference Laboratory for CSF.

The trial came to an end in June 1999. The results indicated that
marker vaccines would reduce the spread of infection within a
herd and consequently reduce the risk of the disease spreading to
other farms, but would not prevent transplacental transmission of
virus in most of the vaccinated pregnant sows. In addition, the
tests used to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals
are not suitable for use on individual animals and their sensitivity
and specificity is inferior to the existing conventional tests.

The results of this trial will be taken into consideration by the
Commission and the Member States, in the framework of the
review of Council Directive 80/217/EEC (see paragraph 84).

24. The development of the Animo system has at all times been
the responsibility of the Commission, which has taken all the nec-
essary decisions to that end. Operating such a network at Com-
munity level requires a common host centre through which mess-
ages can be exchanged either directly between units in the system
or through national host centres. Eurokom was designated as the
common host centre for the computerised network following a
call for tenders (see Decisions 91/638/EEC and 92/373/EEC).
Arrangements for cooperation between the host centre and the
Member States were laid down by Commission Decision 92/486/
EEC as amended. The host centre should be regarded therefore as
a provider of services to the Member States, which provide the
funding. The Animo system was assessed at a seminar held in Por-
tugal on 26 to 29 October 1997. During the seminar, a study car-
ried out by Alcatel on the (cid:145)Analysis and assessment of the current
Animo network and system architecture(cid:146) was considered. It was
shown once again that there is a need for a common technical
centre. The role of this centre is not to manage the system but to
ensure that messages sent to it are forwarded.

26. The shortcomings of the Animo system in Spain have over
a certain period been attributable to a variety of domestic causes.
The issue has been discussed by the experts(cid:146) group and in the
Standing Veterinary Committee. From 1 November 1996, the
national host centre in Spain was no longer capable of receiving
messages from other Member States.

It should be noted that the Netherlands made a copy for the Span-
ish authorities of all messages concerning Dutch pig consign-
ments. These copies were made available to the Spanish authori-
ties from 10 February 1997.

The same procedure was also adopted for Italy, where two con-
signments of infected piglets from the Netherlands were traced
and CSF quickly eradicated without any secondary outbreaks
occurring. Consequently the statement by the Spanish authori-
ties that the shortcomings of the Animo system were one of the
main causes of the spread of CSF is at least debatable.

19. Amongst the follow-up actions to the 1994 workshop referred
to in the reply to paragraph 35 are the preparation and financing
by the Commission:

(cid:151) of a study on the epidemiology of CSF in densely-populated
areas of Belgium and Germany (outbreaks of 1993 and 1995),

(cid:151) beginning in mid-1998, of research project FAIR5-CT-3566
on the (cid:145)Development of prevention and control strategies to
address animal health and related problems in densely-
populated livestock areas of the Community(cid:146). This project is
carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of alternative CSF control
strategies, including the possible use of marker vaccines. The
Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen (NL) will coordinate this
project.

From April 1997, the management of the Animo system in Spain
has been entrusted to Tragsatec. For a transitional period (April
1997 to January 1998), Tragsatec took responsibility for messages
sent by the host centre using e-mail. It then distributed them to
the various authorities concerned.

27-29. The Commission considers that improvements can be
made to the present arrangements. This will probably mean
involving users to a much greater extent rather than changing the
whole system.

At the moment the Commission(cid:146)s priority is to see to it that the
system is able to continue functioning after 1 January 2000, i.e.

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/25

dealing with the problem facing every computerised system as
regards both hardware and software. Once that date has passed,
the Commission will take account of the Court(cid:146)s observations in
order to improve the reliability of the system in the way arising
from the seminar referred to above, and in the light of the legal
deadlines under the present system.

35. The Commission shares the Court(cid:146)s view that the 1997 to
1998 CSF epidemic has underlined the need to review some
aspects of current legislation on this disease and its implementa-
tion, although it has been shown that CSF can be controlled and
successfully eradicated also in high-density areas, if current legis-
lation is properly applied.

Exceptional market support measures

31. The use of a ceiling for the number of eligible animals was
introduced for the first time during the 1993 to 1994 epidemic.
In order to provide for co-financing of the market support mea-
sures, ceilings were applied to both Community and national
funding. Later on, the co-financing system followed the (cid:145)70 % to
30 %(cid:146) rule, but the principle of a ceiling was maintained. The ceil-
ings were estimated by the Member States and adjusted regularly
in line with the progress of the disease.

The ceilings can only be regarded as a guideline for the calcula-
tion of the financial aspects of the measure. They have to be
adjusted from time to time to take account of outbreaks, and it is
totally impossible to fix a precise number of eligible animals in
advance.

However, this legislation includes a certain degree of flexibility
that allows the competent authorities to control disease, taking
into account the local epidemiological situation. It is up to the
Member States to make proper use of this flexibility and if neces-
sary to introduce further measures that go beyond the minimum
requirements of Community Directives, when this is deemed nec-
essary to achieve the objective, in accordance with Article 249 of
the Treaty.

It is evident that eradication of certain animal diseases can involve
additional difficulties in areas with a high density of livestock. The
matter had been addressed several times in scientific meetings
arranged by the Commission, well before the 1997 epidemic.

The Commission is financing further research on these issues (see
also paragraphs 16 to 19) and the matter is also being dealt with
in the framework of the ongoing review of Directive 80/217/EEC.

The results of the Commission(cid:146)s on-the-spot inspection visits were
taken into consideration when the support measures were drafted
or amended.

Community financing

On-the-spot controls by the Commission

34. The Netherlands case (in March 1997) was the first where
the possibility of transmission of CSF through artificial insemina-
tion had to be considered seriously.

The matter is not specifically dealt with by Council Directive
80/217/EEC, but only by Directive 90/429/EEC on intra-
Community trade and import of pig semen. However, the situa-
tion in the south of the Netherlands in the spring of 1997 was
such that it should have led to a much more cautious approach
to trade in semen from the restricted areas to the rest of the coun-
try.

The Commission is now fully aware of the risk and has given the
matter its closest attention in a subsequent case during an on-the-
spot check in the Federal Republic of Germany (late 1998) and in
the review of Directive 80/217/EEC (see paragraph 84).

In the case of an outbreak of CSF, finished pigs cannot be sold on
the market in the normal manner due to the veterinary and com-
mercial restrictions. It is at this stage of the production process
that market support measures have to be applied, offering farm-
ers the possibility of delivering their fattening animals to the
authorities. There is no need to buy in younger fattening animals
as these may be marketed in the normal way if the epidemic ends
early enough.

37. The Commission wishes to underline that for many years
exceptional market support measures were financed at 100 % by
the Community budget. The principle of co-financing by the
Member State was introduced by the Commission in stages in the
ad hoc regulations opening exceptional market support measures
related to the last two major epidemics (1993 to 1994 and 1997
to 1998). The first step was the introduction of the concept of
Community and national ceilings on the number of animals eli-
gible for the scheme. The second step was the application of the
70 % to 30 % sharing of the costs between the Commission and
the Member State concerned.

The system of co-financing of market support measures was
introduced by the Commission using the management powers at
its disposal, because the Member States have the leading role in
combating CSF. The engagement of the Member States(cid:146) financial
responsibility increased their awareness of the necessity of taking
effective measures to combat the disease.

The Commission will propose that the co-financing rate for mar-
ket support measures in future be the same as for veterinary mea-
sures, in order to avoid the difficulties mentioned by the Court.

Details of transactions under budget heading B2-5 1 0 6, to which
classical swine fever expenditure is charged, can be found in the
Commission accounts using the Sincom system, to which the
Court has access.

C 85/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

It is not yet possible, given the present situation regarding
41.
checks, in particular of expenditure for 1998 presented recently,
to give precise figures for expenditure for Spain which will finally
be recognised as eligible. It is likely, however, in view of the obser-
vations in principle on the finances that have already been noti-
fied officially to Spain, that a large part of the expenditure pre-
sented will not be recognised as eligible.

The local epidemiological situation will, in each case, determine
the number and location of pig farms where preventive slaughter
is to be carried out. The present legislation requires the Member
States to perform in-depth epidemiological investigations and
allows the use of preventive slaughter as required in a specific
situation.

42. Preventive killings are one of the more effective ways of tack-
ling the CSF problem in high-density areas such as Damme, Ger-
many, and Wingene, Belgium, as the Court remarks in paragraph
46.

These slaughterings took place during the 1993 and 1994 epi-
demic and were financed as exceptional market support mea-
sures. The Court has already commented on this in its 1995
Annual Report, and as the Commission replied, the decision taken
at the time was one of policy.

Unfortunately, some Member States underestimated the virulence
and infectiousness of the CSF virus and were not adequately pre-
pared to cope with the emergency situations which occurred in
1997.

47. The Court(cid:146)s report states that scientific opinion was divided
at the time when preventive killing was first applied and then sus-
pended in the Netherlands (February 1997). However, only a few
Dutch experts opposed the measure. Unfortunately, their advice
was followed. It must be underlined also that the Commission
and the Standing Veterinary Committee were not informed in
good time of the decision of the Dutch authorities to suspend pre-
ventive killing.

As indicated in the reply to paragraph 37, the alignment of the
co-financing rate for market support measures with that for vet-
erinary measures should eliminate the problem referred to by the
Court at the end of the paragraph.

51. The Commission notified the Spanish authorities in Septem-
ber 1998 of its reservations regarding the eligibility of partial
slaughter. Its position has remained unchanged.

IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES

Veterinary measures

Origin of the 1997 to 1998 epidemic

Issues relating to the Animo system have already been dealt

44.
with in the reply to paragraph 26.

Preventive killing

46. Council Directive 80/217/EEC and Council Decision 90/424/
EEC contain provisions for preventive slaughter and destruction
of pigs kept on farms which, due to the location of the farm or
established epidemiological links to an infected holding, may be
infected or contaminated with CSF virus. The objective of this is
to reduce the possibility of the virus spreading further.

When CSF occurs in an area with a high density of pigs, the use
of preventive slaughter is a useful eradication tool if the action is
based on a thorough epidemiological investigation. Such an inves-
tigation must take into consideration all the potential factors that
may have caused herd-to-herd virus transmission (quantity of
virus spread in the environment before virus in the outbreak is
removed, pig density in the area, distance to the outbreak, animal
movements, direct and indirect contacts, etc.).

Compensation

53-55. The Commission has drawn financial conclusions from
the results of its checks and a large proportion of the expenditure
for eradication presented by the Netherlands has been rejected. In
particular, expenditure on the (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme has not been
reimbursed (paragraph 64) and a financial correction of 25 % has
been applied to the category of expenditure where irregularities
have been found repeatedly. Together these corrections total some
EUR 90 million.

57-61. The significant price inconsistencies and discrepancies
referred to by the Court were in most cases mentioned also by the
Commission in its inspection reports. In general these are the
result of insufficient administrative supervision of compensation
payments made by Member States at the time of the epidemic.
The Commission will of course draw the appropriate financial
lessons from its checks.

The Commission intends to issue guidelines to the Member States
shortly, for the future but on the basis of experience gained dur-
ing the 1997 epidemic, concerning both the procedures and the
calculation of the compensation with regard to Community
co-financing.

The Dutch (cid:145)overname(cid:146) scheme

65. Restrictions on the free movement of goods resulting from
the application of veterinary measures are likely to bring about

23.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 85/27

serious upheaval on the pigmeat market in the Member State con-
cerned by an epidemic. This is the main reason for the introduc-
tion of exceptional market support measures. The normal market
is closed, and delivery under the support scheme is the only pos-
sible outlet for the farmers concerned. Animal welfare aspects
may also play a role but are not the principal reason for the sup-
port measure.

Exceptional market support measures

Purpose

66. Wider sampling and examination under the accounts clear-
ance procedure showed the problem to be marginal and it will
not be followed up in the clearance procedure.

Cull sows

instrument was not very successful and should not be repeated in
the future, because the large-scale insemination of all sows at the
end of the ban led to a disturbance of the piglet market in 1998.

In view of the need to respond to BSE epidemics and to
76.
undertake the work associated with the completion of the single
market, as explained in the reply to paragraphs 14 to 15, the
Commission had to make choices in prioritising its work in the
animal health field. However, the work relating specifically to CSF
has been reinforced since 1998.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE 1995 ANNUAL REPORT

78. The Commission cannot prevent Member States from pre-
senting ineligible claims for reimbursement of expenditure. It can,
however, exclude those claims from reimbursement by the Com-
munity budget.

69. Cull sows are replaced on a regular basis because their per-
formance declines over time (cid:150) 30 % to 40 % of sows are replaced
each year. When an epidemic continues for several months, the
farmer must be able to dispose of those animals in order to keep
the economic results of his piglet production at an adequate level.
It is up to each farmer whether he participates in the scheme or
not. That is the reason also why cull sows have been eligible only
in countries with a long-lasting epidemic (the Netherlands and
Spain) but not in Germany or Belgium.

79. The Commission will propose that the co-financing rate for
market support measures in future should be the same as for vet-
erinary measures, in order to avoid the difficulties mentioned by
the Court, as indicated in the reply to paragraph 37.

80. The Commission intends to issue guidelines to the Member
States concerning both procedures and the calculation of com-
pensation with regard to Community co-financing of veterinary
measures, as indicated in the answer to paragraphs 57 to 61.

Canning in Germany

73. The 20 % of canned products still in store do not create costs
for the authorities but for the company concerned. The canned
products are stored under customs control and are clearly identi-
fied by their labelling in German and Russian.

The insemination ban in the Netherlands

74. The insemination ban was a new measure, introduced for the
first time in summer 1997. During the first few months of the
epidemic in the Netherlands, it was impossible to estimate its
likely duration, and therefore the market support measures were
limited to the killing of piglets and finished fattening pigs. Article
20 of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 states that market support
measures (cid:145)may be taken only in so far and for such period as is
strictly necessary for the support of that market(cid:146). This means that
it is not possible, at the beginning of an epidemic, to introduce
long-term measures. It only became clear during the summer of
1997 that the disease might continue until the end of the year,
and that it would be reasonable to introduce an insemination ban,
which would reduce the number of new piglets born four months
later.

81. The Commission shares the view of the Court that produc-
ers should share greater responsibility for the financial aspects of
the eradication of animal diseases. In the pig sector report, it was
stated that farmers might contribute to insurance schemes for
emergency situations due to animal diseases (1).

However, the whole matter falls under the competence of Mem-
ber States. In some of them public or private/public insurance
schemes have been established, which are also supported by pig
producers.

It is very difficult from a technical point of view to create similar
schemes at Community level. It is the intention of the Commis-
sion therefore to evaluate the possibility of supporting the Mem-
ber States in establishing these schemes, in the framework of the
revision of Community legislation on these issues.

CONCLUSION

82. A cost-benefit analysis of alternative CSF control strategies,
including the possible use of marker vaccines, is currently being

The insemination ban was applied for the first time at the specific
request of the Dutch authorities. The Commission agrees that this

(1) Report on the situation in the pigmeat sector in the EU with a view
to possible changes to structural support measures, COM(98) 434
final, 27 July 1998, p. 25.

C 85/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.3.2000

undertaken. As indicated in the reply to paragraph 19, the Com-
mission is financing research project FAIR5-CT-3566 on the
(cid:145)Development of prevention and control strategies to address ani-
mal health and related problems in densely-populated livestock
areas of the Community(cid:146). The Landbouwuniversiteit of Wagenin-
gen (NL) is the coordinator of this project.

85. Since the 1993 to 1995 epidemic the Commission has:

(cid:151) seen to it that all Member States have a contingency plan for
FMD, which is the most economically important viral disease
in pigs, and that these plans are available for use in the case
of an outbreak of CSF,

The principles of the non-vaccination policy are the same in all
developed countries and any change in the EU policy must
adequately consider the consequences on intra-Community and
international trade.

(cid:151) requested and obtained an opinion from the Scientific Veteri-
nary Committee on the potential advantages and disadvan-
tages of the use of a marker vaccine during a disease epidemic,

By way of comparison, over the last decade the slaughter policy
in the case of foot-and-mouth disease has produced direct savings
on vaccination costs estimated at over ECU 1 billion. The indirect
economic advantages related to increased trade within the Com-
munity and exports to third countries are very difficult to esti-
mate but are likely to be many times higher. In the mean time the
number of disease outbreaks in the Community and the related
costs and losses have been much lower than in the previous 10
years.

83. The Commission will take account of the Court(cid:146)s comments
in improving the reliability of the Animo system, as mentioned in
the reply to paragraph 29. It does not however agree that a failure
of the system was the principal cause of the failure to detect the
spread of the disease in Spain (see reply to paragraph 26). As far
as the failure to recognise semen as a vector of CSF is concerned,
the Netherlands case was the first where the possibility of trans-
mission of this disease through artificial insemination had seri-
ously to be considered. However, the situation in the Netherlands
in April 1997 was such that it should have led to a much more
cautious approach on trade of semen from the restricted areas to
the rest of the country. The Commission is now fully aware of the
risk (see reply to paragraph 34). As far as the suspension of pre-
ventive killing in the Netherlands is concerned, the Commission
recalls that neither it nor the Standing Veterinary Committee were
involved in the discussion prior to the decision to suspend pre-
ventive killing.

84. The storage of the canned products is a matter for the com-
pany concerned only, as noted in the reply to paragraph 72. As
far as the insemination ban is concerned, the Commission agrees
that this instrument was not very successful and should not be
repeated in the future (see reply to paragraph 73).

(cid:151) conducted a large-scale laboratory trial on the use of marker
vaccines, for which marketing authorisation has been sought
but not yet obtained,

(cid:151) supported research project FAIR5-CT-3566, referred to in the
reply to paragraph 81, which includes a cost-benefit analysis
of alternative CSF control strategies.

The CSF epidemic in 1997 to 1998 underlined the need to review
some aspects of current legislation on this disease and its imple-
mentation. In December 1998, therefore, the Commission together
with the Member States(cid:146) experts launched a review of Community
legislation on CSF (Council Directive 80/217/EEC).

This review will consider experience gained in implementing dis-
ease eradication measures, scientific progress in the fields of CSF
diagnosis and the development of marker vaccines, problems
relating to persistence of disease in the wild boar population, the
results of most recent studies on CSF epidemiology, cost-benefit
analysis of different eradication strategies, and changes in the
structure of the pig industry. No basic changes are foreseen, how-
ever, in the non-vaccination policy adopted in the Community,
which is supported by all Member States.

A Commission proposal for the amendment of Directive 80/217/
EEC will be sent to the Council in the coming months. It should
continue to recognise the need for a certain degree of flexibility
to allow the competent authorities in the Member States (cid:151) who
in any case have primary responsibility for disease control (cid:151) to
take the local epidemiological situation into account when con-
trolling disease outbreaks.