WRITTEN QUESTION P-4148/00 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, State aid, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cattle, competition, testing

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/147

(2001/C 187 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4148/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months

It is reported that, on 19 December 2000, the Agriculture Council decided that no European funds would
be used to cover any part of the cost of obligatory tests to be carried out on all cattle aged over 30 months
entering the food chain in order to prevent BSE-infected meat from entering the food chain. The same
applies to the cost of the ban on the processing of meat waste into animal feedingstuffs.

Does not the Commission fear that, if funding rules are left without further ado to the discretion of the
Member States, the disparities in the options chosen may lead to distortion of competition and to
deflection of certain trade flows? Does not the Commission therefore take the view that rules should be
adopted which would apply to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission co-financing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) tests for cattle is subject to the
legal framework laid down by the Commission Decision 2000/773/EC of 30 November 2000 approving
the programmes for the monitoring of BSE presented for 2001 by the Member States and fixing the level
the Community(cid:146)s financial contribution (1), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of
of
18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (2).

In the case that measures to combat BSE would constitute State aid in the sense of Articles 87-88
(ex Articles 92-93) of the EC Treaty which might distort competition, such measures would be assessed by
the Commission under the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (3) and in particular
under point 11.4 thereof (aid for combatting plant and animal diseases).

(1) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
(3) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4150/00

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for the Environment

A root-and-branch restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for the Environment is planned,
with the unit concerned with waste and the unit concerned with nature conservation, the two units which
are the most active in ensuring implementation of Community directives in the Member States, being
threatened with abolition or splitting up. Such restructuring is being heavily criticised by non-govern-
mental organisations and by officials concerned in the Directorate-General for the Environment itself. The
new structure and the new appointees are being perceived as a shift in policy which cannot be justified by
the general interest and which is seen solely as a pro-industry shift in emphasis.

How can a case be made for maximum implementation of current European environmental legislation
when the most active units in this field are in the process of either being abolished (waste) or split up
(nature conservation)?