Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 as regards the extension of the period for transitional measures" (COM(2003) 103 final — 2003/0046 (COD))
Date: 2003-05-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, health control, health policy, veterinary legislation

C 208/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 as regards
the extension of the period for transitional measures’

(COM(2003) 103 final — 2003/0046 (COD))

(2003/C 208/13)

On 14 March 2003 the Council, in accordance with Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee 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 25 April 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Nielsen.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 14 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes for, with 11 abstentions.

1. Background

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (1) contains rules for
1.1.
classifying Member States and third countries or regions
into various categories, determined by the incidence risk of
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2). The Com-
mission categorisation is based on information from the
countries and regions concerned and follows assessment by
the Scientific Steering Committee. The findings are crucial for
the requirements relating to the control of BSE and the import
of live animals and animal products. Under the regulation, the
rules were to apply from 1 July 2001, with a transitional
period until 1 July 2003, by which time the classification was
expected to be completed.

1.2.
In submitting this proposal, the Commission is seeking
to extend the period of transitional measures by a further two
years to allow classification to be completed. According to the
Commission, it became evident from the assessment of the
dossiers of the various countries that some modifications to
the criteria were necessary to achieve a more appropriate
categorisation, reflecting the BSE risk. These criteria had been
established by the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE). The EU made an unsuccessful approach to the OIE,
proposing an amendment. Similarly, the OIE apparently does
not intend to meet the request to come forward with a list of

( 1) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention,
control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies, OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1.

( 2) BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or ‘mad cow disease’)
has up to now been the predominant type of transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).

BSE free countries. Moreover, the scientific risk assessments of
the various countries have not been concluded as the Scientific
Steering Committee has adopted a final opinion for only one
third of the countries that have requested one.

1.3.
The extension of time is designed to give the Com-
mission an opportunity to submit a new proposal aimed at
securing agreement with the OIE on the determination of BSE
status based on the Commission’s own notion of
risk-
assessment requirements. These include, for instance, the use
of rapid tests. During the extended transition period, the
Commission also has to conclude the scientific risk assess-
ments.

2. General comments

2.1.
EU cooperation is undermined when, for acceptable
reasons or not, the Commission and the Member States
continually fail to meet the deadlines they themselves jointly
set. That applies not least to the veterinary and health sectors,
which make up almost half of single market legislation. This
erodes legal certainty and makes it impossible to apply the
rules to other parties involved, including in trade with third
countries.

Particularly in the light of enlargement,

2.2.
the Com-
mission and the Member States must be much more aware of
the need for realistic deadlines that can, in practice, be met. At
the same time, the Commission must fulfil its role as ‘guardian
of the Treaty’ in relation to those Member States that do not
comply fully with EU rules or fail to do so on time. As things
now stand, it is necessary to extend the transitional period, but
it is vital not to defer the deadline again next time, which
would only result in added uncertainty.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/51

2.3.
It has to be said that the prolongation will not affect
the level of public health protection since the transitional
measures for the removal of specified risk material and for
slaughter methods will be maintained both within the EU and
in respect of third countries. If the transitional measures are
not prolonged, they will, for instance, no longer be binding on
Member States.

2.4. Moreover,
in a bid to secure greater consistency
between EU and worldwide rules, ongoing and constructive
dialogue must be established between the OIE and the EU.
Drawing on the same scientific bases as those used for risk
assessments, it must also be possible, through constructive
dialogue, to agree on joint rules for risk management. Should
that prove impossible, the EU must accept the consequences
and introduce the requisite sets of rules itself regardless of the
resultant complications in the WTO for trade with third
countries. Lack of international acceptance and time-consum-
ing negotiations must not delay the implementation of those
provisions deemed necessary for EU cooperation.

3. Specific comments

3.1. With regard to the geographical risk assessment carried
out by the Scientific Steering Committee (Geographical BSE
Risk — GBR), Argentina, New Zealand and Brazil are classified
as BSE free (GBR I: ‘BSE free country or region’), while the
USA, Canada and Sweden are listed as countries in which the
probability of BSE risks is negligible (GBR II: ‘BSE presence is

Brussels, 14 May 2003.

unlikely but not excluded’). It is however worrying if the risk
assessment for third countries is not based on the same testing
requirements as in the Member States, including random tests
on slaughter animals.

3.2.
In the light of the situation that is emerging, the
Commission should, even at this stage, consider the possibility
of pressing ahead with classification on a revised footing, given
both the deficiencies of the current arrangements and the fact
that, according to information,
the amendments will be
necessary in any case.

3.3.
All the candidate countries are deemed to have a risk
level commensurate with that of the Member States (GBR III:
‘BSE presence is likely but not confirmed or confirmed at
lower level’). It is vital to secure the final classification of the
candidate countries before enlargement, so that any risk factors
involved in internal trade in live animals and animal products
are completely clear before accession.

4. Conclusion

4.1.
Subject to the provisos set out above, the European
Economic and Social Committee endorses the proposal to
extend the deadline. The Commission should work hard to
convince the OIE and to clarify the legal situation regarding
TSE control in the EU. In any case, it is vital to finish classifying
the countries as quickly as possible. That is also necessary
from the point of view of implementing any additional,
complementary measures to follow up classification.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH