Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever"
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU aid, animal plague, disease prevention, health legislation, swine, vaccination

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/21

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Community
measures for the control of classical swine fever’

(2001/C 148/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of classical
swine fever (COM(2000) 462 final — CNS 2000/0214);

having regard to the Council decision of 2 October 2000 to consult it, under the first paragraph of
Article 265 of the EC Treaty;

having regard to the decision of its President of 23 October 2000 to entrust Commission 2 — Agriculture,
Rural Development and Fisheries — with the preparation of the opinion;

having regard to Council Directive 80/217/EEC of 22 January 1980 introducing Community measures
for the control of classical swine fever;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 2 on 16 January 2001 [CdR 377/2000 rev. 1
— rapporteur: Mr Eveslage, Councillor of the municipality of Barssel, Vice-chairman of the German
Association of Towns and Municipalities (D/PPE)],

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 37th plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2001
(meeting of 14 February).

The Committee of the Regions

6.

1. welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to improve
the control of classical swine fever in the Community
with a draft Directive;

2.

notes with regard to Article 2(c) of the draft Directive
that it is not clear from the definition of the term ‘holding’
which parts of farm buildings and farmland are covered;
and therefore suggests that this be clarified by stipulating
that the term covers all premises for keeping hoofed
animals including the associated outbuildings and the
land attached to the holding;

3.

notes with regard to Article 2(m), that the term ‘owner’ is
a fixed legal term and that the term ‘stock farmer’ should
be used instead;

4. would remark with regard to Article 2(u) that an ‘area
with a high density of pigs’ cannot be fixed as a
geographical area with a radius of 10 km but rather
should relate to the actual pig density in the prohibition
areas, observation areas and protection zones that are to
be established;

5.

criticises with regard to Article 5(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of
the draft Directive that the expression ‘a sufficient number
of samples’ used in these Articles is too general and
creates planning uncertainty; and suggests that a key
related to the size of the holding be laid down for the
number of samples to be taken;

notes with regard to Article 4(2)(f) and (g) that the written
authorisations required from the competent authority for
persons and vehicles entering and leaving a holding can
result in costs and paperwork for regional and local
authorities that are out of all proportion to the actual
benefits which are likely to accrue; and therefore suggests
that consideration be given to whether it would be
sufficient, as regional and local authorities think, to list
the persons and vehicles in a register;

7. would point out with regard to Article 7(3) in conjunction
with Annex V that it should be made clear that the criteria
listed are not mandatory or binding but that in accordance
with the subsidiarity principle and the need for effective
control of swine fever, the competent national, regional
and local authorities can adopt a suitably flexible
approach to each case;

8.

9.

notes that the measures in the established protection
zones, as provided for in Article 10, are very far-reaching
and should therefore be supplemented by a general
obligation on the part of the European Commission to
implement a buying-in programme when the prohibition
period exceeds 42 days;

proposes that Member States ensure that in regions with
a high domestic or feral pig density special checks or
surveillance measures are introduced that permit early
recognition of the risk of classical swine fever.

C 148/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

Whether the ensuing costs can be charged to domestic pig
farmers or hunting permit holders is a matter which should be
discussed;

10. expressly welcomes the provision in Article 20 stipulating
that in order to avoid an outbreak of classical swine fever,
feral pigs can also be vaccinated against the disease;

11. welcomes with regard to the possibility of emergency
vaccinations provided for in Article 19 that the competent
national, regional and local bodies can decide in future
about the implementation of emergency vaccination,
given that they can judge local circumstances and epide-
miological links from close range;

12. proposes that

if a marker vaccine is available, ring
vaccinations can be carried out over a limited period and

13.

14.

area in regions with a high pig density as an additional
means of combating classical swine fever;

remarks with regard to Article 19(4) that it will be
scarcely possible to sell the meat of vaccinated animals
on the market; and therefore calls on the European
Commission to lay down a compulsory buying-in pro-
gramme for these pigs and their products;

recommends that steps be taken in the accession nego-
tiations to ensure that the candidate countries from
central and eastern Europe can be included in schemes
for controlling classical swine fever via the application of
Community animal health legislation;

15. calls on the European Commission, in the light of its draft
Directive, to review the older Directives 89/662/EEC and
90/425/EEC and to update them if necessary.

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT