Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy as well as various other Regulations relating to the common agricultural policy"
Date: 2001-01-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, common agricultural policy

C 123/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

3.5.3.
In point 9, conditions to the possible use of a marker
vaccine are described. The approval of a marker vaccine, the
international acceptance and the usage of vaccination should
be conditional to the use of vaccination. This is essential in
relation to EU exports in order to secure that the usage of a
marker vaccine in one region does not jeopardise exports from
other EU regions.

4. Conclusions

importance in ensuring that all the relevant authorities have
full knowledge of the location and density of pig populations.

4.3.
The Committee welcomes the proposals for the possi-
bility of the introduction of a marker CSF vaccine in certain
limited circumstances.

The Committee considers it vital that all trade impli-

4.4.
cations be clarified first.

Fair and equitable compensation arrangements for
4.1.
farmers who have suffered financial loss as a result of disease
control measures are an essential feature of any disease control
scheme.

The Committee points out that as yet no marker
4.5.
vaccine has been approved and that no differential test is even
in existence. However the making of these rules should act as
a guide to potential vaccine manufacturers.

4.2.
in relation to the ‘identification of porcine animals’,

The proper implementation of Directive 92/102/EEC,
is of

The Standing Veterinary Committee will have to be

4.6.
consulted before vaccination is used.

Brussels, 24 January 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy as
well as various other Regulations relating to the common agricultural policy’

(2001/C 123/17)

On 12 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 20 December 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Strasser.

At its 378th plenary session held on 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 24 January), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
On 26 July 2000 the European Commission proposed
a radical revision of the EU Financial Regulation. The main
purpose of the proposal was to simplify and restructure the
existing Financial Regulation, which was introduced over
20 years ago.

1.2.
The 1977 version has been amended 14 times, as and
when necessary: firstly, in order to reflect institutional changes
(the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, funding for EFTA
countries in the framework of the EEA) and then to ensure
more rigorous management of Community resources.

1.3.
The Commission considers that all the principles and
key provisions for budget and financial management should

25.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 123/73

be brought together in a single legal
instrument, whereas
detailed and technical provisions should be covered in
implementing regulations.

— financing of the common agricultural policy (2),

— the additional levy on surplus milk production (3),

1.4.
In order to ensure the necessary transparency in
budget accounting (1), the draft proposal provides for ‘negative
expenditure’ in the agricultural sector to be treated as earmar-
ked revenue in accordance with the rules in effect for this
sector.

1.5.
The term ‘negative expenditure’ is used on the one
hand when referring to recovery of payments already made
and on the other for revenue that could not yet be considered
as revenue in budgetary planning. ‘Negative expenditure’ is the
result of a complicated budgetary mechanism and is divided
into five categories:

— amounts recovered as a result of fraud or irregularities,

— corrections to advances made on the basis of Article 13

of the rules on budgetary discipline,

— any ‘profits’ which may arise from sales from public

storage,

— the additional levy on surplus milk production,

— the financial consequences of clearance-of-accounts

decisions.

from
In order to transform ‘negative expenditure’
1.6.
the EAGGF guarantee section into earmarked revenue, the
Commission proposes to define what recoveries, levies and
sums withheld under the common agricultural policy are to
be considered as earmarked revenue in the following cases:

— financing of intervention measures in the form of public

storage accounts (4),

— and crediting of securities, deposits and guarantees furni-
shed under the common agricultural policy and sub-
sequently forfeited (5).

2. Comments

2.1.
The Committee considers that the Commission’s pro-
posal to separate the budgeting and entering of ‘earmarked
revenue’ accords with the budget principle of transparency,
and especially also the need to identify the various account
movements in the agricultural budget.

The Committee therefore welcomes the proposal to
2.2.
transform ‘negative expenditure’ into ‘earmarked revenue’. This
also provides the necessary clarification called for several times
by the European Court of Auditors. This clarification also
means that sums converted from ‘negative expenditure’ into
‘earmarked revenue’ are unquestionably available for purposes
of the EAGGF Guarantee section. The Committee emphasises
that this proposed amendment will not place any additional
burden on the Community budget.

2.3.
The Committee asks the Commission to ensure that its
implementing rules contain clear instructions regarding the
reports to be submitted by the member states.

(1) The European Court of Auditors has lamented the difficulty of
identifying ‘negative expenditure’ in the accounts (see for example
its Annual report for the financial year 1998, point 2.39, OJ C
349, 3.12.1999).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(3) Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
(4) Regulation (EEC) No 3492/90, OJ L 337, 4.12.1990.
(5) Regulation (EEC) No 352/78, OJ L 50, 22 .2.1978.

Brussels, 24 January 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS