WRITTEN QUESTION E-1368/01 by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Foot-and-mouth crisis.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, foot-and-mouth disease, health certificate, intra-EU trade, traceability

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/93

However, European legislation on protection of wild animals, protection of animals used for experimental
or scientific purposes, animal welfare on the farm, during transport and at slaughter does not apply to
stray dogs.

Therefore, the Commission has no legal basis to formally address this issue with the Romanian authorities.

(2001/C 364 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1368/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth crisis

In light of the continuing foot-and-mouth crisis and the regulations requiring that all animals moving into
the island of Ireland are certified with animal health certificates, can the Commission account for animal
movements to the Republic of Ireland from the UK, in the context that animals moving from Northern
Ireland to the Republic do not require such certificates, and that there has been confusion and delay with
regard to the tracing of these animals because of this?

According to reports in the media a truck belonging to a dealer in Banbridge, Ireland, carrying infected
animals from Britain, travelled to several marts in Northern Ireland. Can the Commission confirm that all
these animals have been traced? Can the Commission confirm that the Irish and UK authorities have traced
all potentially diseased animals that originated in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Community legislation on intra-Community trade of bovine, porcine, ovine and caprine animals, as laid
down in Council Directives 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-
Community trade in bovine animals and swine (1) and Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on
animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2), requires that
any consignment of
these animals moving from one Member State to another Member State is
accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent veterinary authority of the Member State of
dispatch.

The above provisions therefore apply to movements from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. In
addition, safeguard measures due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) ban any movement of live
cattle from the United Kingdom.

Due to the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United Kingdom, the Commission adopted a ban
on 21 February 2001, the day after the reporting of the disease in England, on any movement of animals
of FMD-susceptible species from the United Kingdom to any other destination. In the following days
further decisions were also taken concerning the tracing of the consignments of those animals, and
particularly sheep, which had been moved from the United Kingdom after the likely date of FMD
introduction in England, which was estimated to be not before 1 February 2001.

During the FMD crisis, the Irish authorities have constantly informed the Commission about their progress
in tracing animals legally or illegally moved into Ireland. Most of these animals had been routinely
slaughtered before 21 February. The animals concerned, sheep and pigs, mainly introduced for fattening or
immediate slaughter, were traced. Tests carried out on these animals gave negative results for FMD.

C 364 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

On 13 March 2001, the Irish authorities provided the Commission with a report which concludes that
a haulier was responsible for some illegal movements of sheep. The Commission is not aware whether the
haulier mentioned in this report is the same as that quoted by the Honourable Member. However, the
Commission is confident that the competent authorities of Ireland have done their utmost to trace all
consignments of animals introduced into Ireland in the first weeks of February 2001.

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964.
(2) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991.

(2001/C 364 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1377/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

(7 May 2001)

Can the Commission give a rational explanation for the continuing protracted delay in the transposition of
rules required to enable the Community to fulfil the obligations incumbent on it because it belongs to
particular regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) and specifically, to name just some examples, to APICD
(the failure to comply with the international agreement concerned resulted in an embargo) and the
CCAMLR, whose 1999 measures have still not entered into force? Furthermore, as far as ICCAT is
concerned, although it is a leading contracting party, the Commission may not meet the deadline laid
down by the Working Group on Allocation Criteria requiring it to submit a discussion document by
21 April, as agreed at ICCAT(cid:146)s 12th extraordinary meeting.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission is aware of the growing importance to the Community of multilateral management of
maritime fisheries, and it shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s wish that the binding recommendations
adopted by the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) to which the Commission is a contracting party
should be incorporated into Community law as soon as possible. Since 1999 the Commission has
undertaken extensive work drafting and proposing Council regulations to implement them.

For example, on 16 December 1999 Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 laying down certain control
measures applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-
east Atlantic fisheries (1) incorporated into Community law the control scheme adopted by the Northeast
Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), and numerous proposals have since been tabled at the Council
and presented to Parliament for opinion.

With regard to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), two
Regulations were proposed: the first on technical measures for highly migratory species (2) (adopted at the
Council meeting (fisheries) on 25 April 2001) and the second on control measures for highly migratory
species (3) (currently being examined by the Council Working Party on External Fisheries Policy). Both
Regulations cover not only the ICCAT rules, but also those of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)
and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

the
Regarding the Agreement on the
Commission is aware of certain Member States(cid:146) concern about implementing its tuna monitoring system.
The proposal for a Council Regulation adopted by the Commission will shortly be presented to the
Council and to Parliament.

International Dolphin Conservation Programme (AIDCP),

The Council also adopted an implementing proposal on the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Mar(cid:237)ne Living Resources (CCAMLR), relating to the scheme for documenting catches of Dissosticchus
species (toothfish). A further two proposals are currently being prepared within the Commission, one on
technical measures
the
CCAMLR Convention. Moreover, the total allowable catches (TACs) and the main technical measures

and one on control measures

covered by

applicable

in the

area