WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/01 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. Payment of export refunds on live cattle.
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: drafting of EU law, export, export refund, live animal, protection of animals, third country, transport of animals

C 134 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Action had already been taken at Community level following the first tragic tunnel fires. The Commission
has set up a working plan, which also included safety in tunnels in its 5th framework Research and
Technological Development
(RTD) programme. A research project on durable and reliable tunnel
structures (DARTS), as well as a thematic network on Fires in Tunnels (FIT), has been funded. Other
proposals are under evaluation following the latest call in June 2001 for a thematic network on general
tunnel safety.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2002/C 134 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Payment of export refunds on live cattle

On 25 October 2001, Parliament voted to delete from the 2002 budget the payment of export refunds on
live slaughter and breeding cattle exported from the European Union to third countries. Last year, that
trade was subsidised by the EU taxpayer to the tune of EUR 58 million and involved over 300 000 cattle.

Moreover, the German Government asked for a discussion to be held at the Council of Agriculture
Ministers of 23 October on the ending of export refunds in respect of live cattle exported from the EU to
third countries for slaughter. Last year, Germany exported 76 204 slaughter cattle to third countries, more
than any other Member State. That discussion was held over to a future Council meeting.

Given that, on 6 April 2001, Commissioner David Byrne said ‘I believe that we need to limit the transport
of animals over long-distance journeys to the really necessary ones’, does the Commission still hold the
view that export refunds should continue to be payable on live cattle exported from the EU to third
countries.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

At the first reading of the preliminary draft budget for 2002, Parliament approved a reduction of € 58
million in the budget heading for refunds in the beef sector. This amount is equivalent to the export
refunds for all bovine animals (breeding and slaughter).

On 20 November 2001 the Council examined the question of refunds for slaughter cattle.

In the interests of improving the conditions under which animals are transported, the Commission is
considering presenting to the Council a proposal amending Council Directive 91/628/EEC (1) on the
protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC. With the
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare expected to deliver a new opinion at the beginning of
2002, a review of transport times and loading density standards is not out of the question.

The Commission shares the opinion the Council expressed in its resolution of 19 June 2001 (2). Animal
welfare cannot be dealt with in isolation; it must be seen in the context of the sector as a whole.

At its sitting on 14 November 2001 Parliament adopted a resolution approving the report issued by the
parliamentary committees on agriculture and rural development and environment, public health and
consumer policy, and, in particular, called on the Commission to abolish export refunds for live animals
for slaughter at the earliest possible opportunity. This also demonstrates Parliament’s conviction that this
issue should not be dealt with in isolation, without taking into account other aspects relating to the

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/205

livestock sector. What is more, experience has shown that it is unrealistic to believe that if the refunds in
question were abolished, countries which have been traditional importers of live slaughter animals would
switch to importing meat. Given the supply situation on world markets, they would simply look to other
cattle-exporting countries for their supplies of these animals.

In the Commission’s opinion, the priority is to ensure strict enforcement of existing animal welfare
legislation. To this end, certain control criteria designed to improve the conditions under which animals
are transported, and the accompanying penalties for infringements, need to be tightened up. A number of
initiatives are already under way in this respect.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ C 273, 28.9.2001.

(2002/C 134 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3143/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel

The Italian and French Transport Ministers have set 15 December 2001 as the date for the reopening of
the Mont Blanc tunnel following repairs and announced at the same time that it would reopen for heavy
vehicles several weeks later, with traffic running one way and alternating direction between the Mont Blanc
and Fréjus tunnels as if they formed one, twin-tubed tunnel, as was reported. This decision has sparked off
widespread criticism in the region, albeit for very different reasons. The two tunnels are on routes, both of
which, at the request of Italy and France, form part of the trans-European transport network and are
included in the White Paper on Transport. Although this document came out very recently, it is still based
on the assumption that traffic will run both ways in the two Alpine tunnels.

Given the above, how does the Council view the recent Italian-French decision in relation to Community
law? Does it not consider it more appropriate to agree to the proposal which has the support of a majority
of the population in the Valle d’Aosta to take the necessary measures to ensure stringent restrictions in the
volume of TIR traffic?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

Bearing in mind the series of tragic accidents in tunnels in the last few years, of which the recent
1.
accident in the Gotthard Tunnel is yet another instance, the Council is fully aware of the importance of
safety in road and rail tunnels. Indeed, this is one of the priorities of the common transport policy.

In its ‘transport’ configuration on 17 June 1999 the Council responded to the explicit request from the
Cologne European Council meeting on 3 and 4 June 1999 by asking the Commission to submit legislative
proposals for promoting safety in tunnels. As can be seen from the White Paper entitled ‘European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, the Commission is planning to submit a legislative proposal in
the near future for ensuring a high level of safety in road and rail tunnels. The proposal should cover all
aspects of tunnel safety, and the Council intends to deal with it promptly, taking due account of the wishes
expressed by the European Parliament in its resolution of 15 November 2001 on the Gotthard Tunnel
disaster.

Referring specifically to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would point
2.
out that the decision on reopening the Mont Blanc tunnel F as with any decision on regulating heavy
vehicle traffic along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Member F is more a matter for the national
authorities, and reflects a desire to ensure that, for the time being, people and goods can move freely under
conditions of safety.