Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and amending Directive 92/46/EEC"
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: disease prevention, exchange of information, foot-and-mouth disease, vaccination, veterinary legislation

C 256/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Community
measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and amending Directive 92/46/EEC’

(2003/C 256/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-
and-mouth disease and amending Directive 92/46/EEC, COM(2002) 736 final — 2002/0299 (CNS),

having regard to the decision of the Council of 7 February 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the
first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 14 May 2002 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable
Development to draw up an opinion on this subject,

having regard to its Resolution on Tackling Foot-and-Mouth Disease CdR 137/2001 fin (1),

having regard to the Report of the European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development, on the proposal for a Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-
and-mouth disease and Amending Directive 92/46/EEC (COM(2002) 736 final — A5-0141/2003-2002/
0299 (CNS)),

having regard to the European Parliament’s Report on measures to control Foot-and-Mouth Disease in
the European Union in 2001 and future measures to prevent and control animal diseases in the European
Union A5-0405/2002 (2002/2153 (INI)),

having regard to the Response to the Reports of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Inquiries by HM Government
with the Welsh Assembly Government, Cm5637,

having regard to the report: Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Lessons to be Learned Inquiry, July 2002,

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 65/2003 rev.) adopted on 28 April 2003 by its Commission for
Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Milner Whiteman, Councillor Bridgnorth District Council (UK-
EA)),

adopted unanimously the following opinion at its 50th plenary session, held on 2 and 3 July 2003
(meeting of 2 July).

1. The Committee of the Regions’ views

The Committee of the Regions

1.1.
underlines that foot-and-mouth disease is an animal
welfare and health issue with negative impacts on the econ-
omic, social and environmental well-being of rural communi-
ties. Control and eradication of the disease is not only a
technical matter but is concerned with governance. The lesson
of recent outbreaks is that Member States could not control
and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease without the support of

(1) OJ C 107, 3.5.2001, p. 1.

local and regional authorities. Without developing this prin-
ciple of shared responsibility, where the different spheres of
government cooperate fully, we will
to control and
eradicate future outbreaks;

fail

1.2.
is of the view that scientific and governance failures to
control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease have direct
human consequences. Even now there is still a sharp reduction
of farming profitability in affected areas, and wider parts of
the rural economy remain blighted;

1.3.
is of the view that the proposed Directive on the
foot-and-mouth disease is largely a technical
control of
measure. It does not cover issues such as rural recovery, where
local and regional authorities are playing a key role;

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/37

will focus its opinion on parts of the proposals that
1.4.
directly affect
local and regional authorities rather than
commenting on all of the technical measures in the proposed
Directive:

— the essential role of local and regional authorities in
controlling and eradicating foot-and-mouth disease;

1.10.
believes that the communication strategies should
make better use of local and regional authority strengths to
In
communicate messages and information to the public.
recent outbreaks local and regional authorities were sources of
trusted information for local people, and are also vital because
of their vital local community leadership role;

— contingency planning;

— control measures;

— environmental impacts of control and eradication; and

— subsidiarity and flexibility.

1.11.
whilst recognising that the primary purpose of the
contingency plans is to eradicate the disease, agrees with the
European Parliament, that some account should be taken of
the economic consequences for the local economy and the
social and psychological
impact of people affected by the
disease control measures. The contingency plans should also
include an impact assessment of the effects of control, on the
provision of other public services.

The essential role of local and regional authorities in controlling and
eradicating foot-and-mouth disease

Control measures

The Committee of the Regions

1.5.
welcomes the proposed legislation as an essential tool
to control and eradicate future outbreaks of foot-and-mouth
disease;

1.6.
believes that Community legislation is needed because
foot-and-mouth disease is an issue that crosses local, regional,
European and international boundaries;

1.7.
believes that in the recent outbreaks local and regional
authorities delivered a very positive response and contribution
to the national efforts to control and eradicate foot-and-
mouth disease. National authorities could not have successfully
tackled the disease without the support of local and regional
authorities.

Contingency planning

The Committee of the Regions

1.8.
recognises that powers of local and regional authorities
vary from Member State to Member State but believes that
local and regional authorities should have a stronger role in the
contingency planning process. Recent outbreaks demonstrated
that they are key partners in the process of eradication and
control;

1.9.
believes that there should be a stronger emphasis on
developing a sound communication strategy in the proposals
for contingency planning. One of the main lessons of the
recent outbreaks is that national authorities had poor com-
munications with other spheres of government and the public
and this delayed the control and eradication of the disease;

The Committee of the Regions

1.12.
to prophylactic vaccinations;

strongly supports the Council’s rejection of any return

1.13.
does not favour derogations on control measures
where a farm has two or more sites. The precautionary
principle should apply because of the potential delay in test
results and risks of cross-contamination, which would act
contrary to the swift eradication of the disease;

1.14.
believes that the precautionary principle is paramount
to prevent the possible import of the disease into the European
Union. The UK inquiry into the start of the outbreak identified
that illegally imported animal feed produced from contami-
nated waste meat products could have been a source of
infection. The Committee of the Regions would like to see a
stronger reference to the control of foot-and-mouth disease at
the borders of the European Union. Some countries such as
the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland had very strict
checks on third countries, whereas the measures in the United
Kingdom appeared to be less stringent;

1.15.
strongly supports suppressive rather that protective
vaccinations. This is because although it means more culling
in the short-term, it will enable rural economies to revive more
speedily after the eradication of the disease;

believes that the benefits of using catering waste for
1.16.
animal feed are far outweighed by the risks during an outbreak
of foot-and-mouth disease;

C 256/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

to support

1.17.
the disease control strategy, supports
reviewing compensation rules. This would be to ensure that
the various methods of control do not lead to differential levels
of compensation, which would act against the swift control of
the disease.

1.19.
believes that contingency planning should incorpor-
ate a local authority’s unique knowledge of its local environ-
ment, and potential environmental impacts of disposal;

1.20.
the local environmental impacts of disposal.

believes that contingency planning should monitor

Environmental impacts of control and eradication

The Committee of the Regions

1.18.
supports the new disposal hierarchy, of incineration,
rendering then landfill, but in principle believes that disposal
should be done as close to the site of infection as possible, to
minimise movement and thus further risk of infection;

Subsidiarity and flexibility

The Committee of the Regions

supports the need for a set of minimum standards
1.21.
and the right of Member States to implement more stringent
control and eradication measures;

1.22.
believes that the decision to begin emergency vacci-
nations should be a shared responsibility, rather than resting
with the Commission.

2. The Committee of the Regions’ recommendations

Recommendation 1

Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(Delete all of Art.18) The precautionary principle shall
apply and there will be no derogations for holdings
consisting of different epidemiological units.

Article 18

Reason

The Committee of the Regions does not favour derogations on control measures where a farm has two or more sites.
The precautionary principle should apply because of the potential delay in test results and risks of cross-
contamination, which would act contrary to the swift eradication of the disease.

Recommendation 2

Article 19b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In the event of an epidemic, the choice of strategy to
control the disease must take account of which strategy
causes the least possible economic damage for non-
agricultural sectors of the economy. Account must also
impact on
be taken of the social and psychological
people affected by disease control measures.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/39

Reason

The Committee of the Regions, whilst recognising that the primary purpose of the contingency plans is to eradicate
the disease, agrees with the European Parliament, that some account should be taken of the economic consequences
for the local economy and the social and psychological impact of people affected by the disease control measures.

Recommendation 3

Article 50.3

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The decision to introduce emergency vaccinations shall
be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to
in Article 89 (3), either on the request of the Member
State directly affected or at risk, or on the Commissions
own initiative.

The decision to introduce emergency vaccinations shall
be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to
in Article 89 (3), either on the request of the Member
State directly affected or at risk, or on the Commissions
consulting own initiative. the Member State directly
affected or at risk.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions believes that the decision to begin emergency vaccinations should be a shared
responsibility, rather than resting with the Commission.

Recommendation 4

Article 74, 1.1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Representatives of local and regional authorities
the national disease

(1.1)
will participate in the work of
control centres.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions recognises that powers of local and regional authorities vary from Member States to
Member State but believes that local and regional authorities should have a stronger role in the contingency planning
process. Recent outbreaks demonstrated that they are key partners in the process of eradication and control.

Recommendation 5

Article 76 1.1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1.1)
Representatives of local and regional authorities
in the affected areas will participate in the work of the
local disease control centres.

C 256/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

Reason

The Committee of the Regions recognises that powers of local and regional authorities vary from Member State to
Member State but believes that local and regional authorities should have a stronger role in the contingency planning
process. Recent outbreaks demonstrated that they are key partners in the process of eradication and control.

Recommendation 6

Annex XVII Criteria and requirements for contingency plans, recital 1.1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1.1)
Provision shall be made for national authorities
to fully consult local and regional authorities on the
creation and implementation of contingency planning
measures.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions recognises that powers of local and regional authorities vary from Member State to
Member State but believes that local and regional authorities should have a stronger role in the contingency planning
process. Recent outbreaks demonstrated that they are key partners in the process of eradication and control.

Recommendation 7

Annex XVII Criteria and requirements for contingency plans, recital 15 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(15)
The contingency planning should develop stra-
tegies to assess the impacts of control mechanisms on
the provision of other public services.

Reason

The contingency plans should also include an impact assessment of the effects of control, on the provision of other
public services. In the last outbreak the control mechanisms affected other key local authority services such as
education and social services. This approach would allow strong control but enable local communities to function
with properly planned public services.

Brussels, 2 July 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE