Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever"
Date: 2001-01-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal plague, directory, exchange of information, health control, indemnification, swine

25.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 123/69

4.12.
The communication refers in several places to agricul-
tural sectors experiencing severe difficulties in achieving
appropriate pricing: difficulty in estimating sustainable demand
and consumption, heavily subsidised crops, measurement of
the diffuse pollution caused by nitrates and pesticides, the CAP
and the lack of a methodology for reliable evaluation of the

environmental costs and benefits. Water pricing for agriculture
requires a separate document and process of consideration.
for example, of the beneficial
Account should be taken,
aspects of cereal irrigation in preserving threatened species or
improving soil characteristics, or agriculture’s contribution to
the CO2 sink effect in relation to climate change.

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 Directive on
Community measures for the control of classical swine fever’

(2001/C 123/16)

On 2 October 2000 the Council of the European Union 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 Scully.

At its 378th plenary session (meeting of 24 January 2001) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion with 81 votes in favour and two abstentions:

1.

Introduction

1.1. Classical swine fever (CSF)

1.1.1. G e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e d i s e a s e

— It is a disease infecting pigs (domestic and wild) and it is
caused by a well known Pestivirus (no risk for humans is
known).

— Clinical signs: fever, anorexia, respiratory signs, haemor-
rhages in the skin; however clinical signs are extremely
variable as well as their severity.

— Mortality is also variable (from very low in sows to very

high in piglets).

— There is no known cure. Some pigs develop into a chronic

state showing ill-thrift etc.

1.1.2.
Clinical diagnosis can be very difficult, in particular
at the early stage of disease in a farm; also laboratory diagnosis
may be difficult.

— Incubation period: 7-10 days in the single animal, 15 to

30 days in the farm.

— Main route of infection: direct or indirect contact with
infected pigs (airborne infection possible); movements of
pigs incubating the disease play an important role in the
spread of the disease.

1.1.3.
The virus survives in pig meat for a considerable
time, and can be spread through illegal use of swill-feeding;
this represents the most usual method of spread of the disease.
Affects the trade in pig meat.

C 123/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

1.1.4.
The causal virus is very infective and can be carried
on lorries, clothing etc. It is therefore essential in controlling
the disease that strict quarantine and Stand Still orders are
observed.

rightly points out the obvious deficiency that there is, as yet,
no reliable diagnostic test to differentiate between the ‘field’
and ‘vaccinate’ strain of the Virus. Until this test is in place,
and properly tested the vaccine cannot be used.

1.2. The main problems linked to CSF and its effects

— Existence of areas with a high density of pigs.

— Occurrence and persistence of CSF in the wild beast.

— Millions of pigs slaughtered and destroyed in 1997/1998.

— High costs and losses for the Community budget, for the
Member States, for the farmers and for the tax payers.

2.2. World Trade Organisation implications must be
known before the introduction of vaccines.

The ‘Third Country’ trading implications of vaccines
2.2.1.
and their use must be examined. There should be international
scientific agreement prior to their introduction. This should
include ‘Applicant countries’ from Eastern Europe having an
appreciation of the Communities future CSF policy.

2.3.

‘Classical Swine Fever in feral Pigs’

1.3. The Commission proposals on what must be done for the

domestic pigs

— Increase of disease awareness and preparedness (effective

contingency planning is vital);

— Rapid and rigorous actions in case of outbreaks (preven-

tive killing of pigs in contact holdings);

— Improvement of diagnostic skills for an earlier diagnosis;

This subject

2.3.1.
is incorporated in the Commission
proposal. Appropriate education campaigns should be under-
taken by the Member States in order to enable society to co-
operate properly when disease eradication is needed.

2.3.2.
Experience has shown that where Swine Fever is
present in the feral pig population, control, let alone eradi-
cation, is very difficult.

— Improvement of epidemiological skills to trace disease

back and forward.

The ESC agrees in principle with the Commission

2.4.
proposal, but it would like to highlight the following:

1.4.
The recent outbreak in the Netherlands which caused
the slaughter of 10 million pigs and subsequent compensation
cost for EU farmers, induced some criticism from the Court of
Auditors.

2.4.1.
Diagnostic Manual — The Commission should accel-
erate its work on adopting it. Based on a preview, the ESC feels
that the draft document is on the right direction.

2. General comments

2.4.2.
embryos into the text is welcomed.

The incorporation of provisions on semen, ova and

The Proposed Directive amends the previous Classical Swine
Fever Directives on which the Committee gave opinions in
1987 and 1991 (1). These amendments are welcomed.

2.4.3.
is welcomed.

Re-stocking by use of sentinel animals or alternative

The explanatory memorandum gives a full account of
2.1.
the reasons for introducing legislation for a ‘Marker’ Vaccine,
including the rare occasion when it might be used. It also quite

2.4.4.
welcomed.

Rules of ‘in contact’ and neighbouring farms are

(1) OJ C 83, 30.3.1987, p. 3 and OJ C 40, 17.2.1992, p. 87.

The aim of

to
2.4.5.
supplant the previous directives, and the underlining of the
changes/additions, to the text is welcomed.

is to supplement, not

this text

25.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 123/71

3.

Specific comments to the proposal

3.1. Preface (6)

In connection with outbreaks of CSF and prevention of
further spread, the possibility to kill contact herds should be
mentioned before vaccination.

3.2. Definition of feral pigs (wild boars) and high densely populated

areas

3.2.1.
In Article 2, sub articles (a) and (b) there is definition
of ‘feral pigs’. When comparing with the previous directive, we
assume that the reason for this amendment is to ensure that
all wild pigs fall within this definition. The ESC believes that
all pigs outside human care should be classified as ‘feral’.

3.2.2.
In Article 2, sub article (u) ‘a high densely populated
area’ is defined as an area with a radius of 10 km around a
holding that is known to be infected or suspected to be
infected with CSF. The area has a higher number of pigs than
800 pigs per km2. At the same time such holdings are to be
located in an area with more than 300 pigs per km2 (cf.
directive on trade with live animals, 64/432/EEC) or to be
located at a distance less than 20 km from such an area. A
more simple definition to ‘area with a high density of pigs’
would be desirable.

3.3. Articles 2 and 7 and Annex V — contact holdings

3.3.1.
A contact holding is defined as a holding in which
CSF may be introduced because of the location, the movements
of pigs, persons or vehicles etc., in connection also with its
vicinity to other holdings within 20 km around a densely
populated area. In parts of the EU there are substantial areas
of ‘high density’ that may fall in with the meaning of this
definition.

3.3.2.
Article 7 (and Annex V) opens the possibility of
killing contact herds before official confirmation of CSF has
proved the presence of virus or antibodies. This is important
in order to limit the spread of the initial outbreaks in an area
(region).

holdings after the likely time of introduction of virus in the
infected holding’. Other direct contact like joint use of tools in
the pen house or the like should also ‘qualify’ for a phased
restocking.

Definition of criteria for culling of the so called
3.3.4.
contact herds, including ‘neighbouring herds’ has already been
incorporated in the eradication strategy. Nevertheless, the
eradication strategy should be even more intensified in the
local area around an infected holding. The eradication strategy
should,
therefore, always include culling of herds within
1 000 m from the infected holding, unless special circum-
stances indicate otherwise.

3.4. Article 11 — Surveillance zone (radius minimum 10 km)

3.4.1.
The surveillance zone may be lifted if among other
things pigs on all holdings have undergone clinical, and if
necessary laboratory examinations. The current provisions
stipulate that serologic examinations of a representative sample
of the herds are required before the surveillance zone may be
lifted. We think that in future a screening of a representative
number of herds should be compulsory in order to minimise
the risk of missing infected pigs with no distinct clinical
symptoms.

3.4.2.
tion and surveillance zones are welcomed.

Articles 8, 9, 10 concerning epidemiology, protec-

3.5. Article 19 and Annex VI — Vaccination

In point 2, reference is made to Annex VI which
3.5.1.
describes the most important criteria that are going to be
assessed before it is decided to use emergency vaccination. It
is not clear whether one or several of these criteria should be
fulfilled. Furthermore, it should be made clear that at any time
the ‘stamping out’ strategy is preferable to vaccination; that
emergency vaccination should be avoided and that other
possible precautions like killing of contact herds, prohibition
of any movements of live animals (apart from minimum zones
etc.) should be enforced prior to any vaccination action.

Annex V describes the most important criteria which
3.3.3.
are to be considered before a contact herd is killed including
‘movement of pigs from an outbreak holding to contact

Emergency vaccination should be initiated on the
3.5.2.
basis of a previous discussion in the Standing Veterinary
Committee (ref. Article 26).

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