WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/03 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Cost of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks.
Date: 2003-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid to agriculture, animal disease, common agricultural policy, farmers' income, foot-and-mouth disease, indemnification, livestock farming, sales aid, vaccination, veterinary legislation

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/227

False claims about the quality features of goods could also be misleading under the terms of Council
Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (2) as amended by
Directive 97/55/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (3) so as to include comparative
advertising. It is up to the national authorities to decide whether the claims the Honourable Member refers
to on readability of CD-ROMs are misleading under this Directive. More generally, it is up to the national
authorities and not for the Commission to enforce Community and national law aimed at the protection of
consumers.

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999.
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.
(3) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(2004/C 65 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject: Cost of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks

1. Will the Commission compensate farmers for any economic losses caused by difficulties selling meat
and dairy products from animals that, in accordance with the recent FMD Directive, are vaccinated against
foot-and-mouth disease by a Member State during an outbreak of the disease and allowed to survive?

2.
If not, is the Commission aware that, on the basis of the costs and benefits involved, disposing of
animals can be a more attractive option for farmers because the total losses caused by vaccination are
likely to be higher? Does the Commission realise that this would in fact cost the EU budget more?

Does the Commission intend to evaluate the rules on compensation for FMD and amend them in the

3.
light of the above?

Does the Commission see ways of guaranteeing or promoting the (European) sale of meat and dairy

4.
products from animals vaccinated against FMD, in view of the depressed state of the industry?

In the event of an outbreak of FMD, will the Commission continue to reimburse in part the costs

5.
incurred in disposing of animals susceptible to FMD in order to combat such an outbreak?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

With reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to refer to
the new Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, which was adopted
by the Council on 29 September 2003 (1).

The new Directive takes due account of the Resolution of the Parliament of 12 December 2002. It also
incorporates the recommendations made by the Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and
the European Economic and Social Committee during the consultation process.

Before responding to each of the individual questions, it should be recalled that the underlying principles
of the newly adopted Directive remain unchanged compared to the measures provided for in Council
Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-
and-mouth disease (2), albeit with a shift of emphasis regarding the use of emergency vaccination. At its
meeting of 12 June 2003 the Council of Ministers of Agriculture agreed therefore to maintain the existing
principles of Community contributions to the costs incurred by Member States for the control and
eradication of foot-and-mouth disease, as laid down in Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on
expenditure in the veterinary field (3).

C 65 E/228

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

The Commission wishes to refer to Article 11 (4) (a) (v) of Council Decision 90/424/EEC. It allows
1.
for possible compensation of owners for losses incurred by farmers as a result of restrictions imposed on
the marketing of livestock and pasture-fattened animals as a result of the reintroduction of emergency
vaccination. These provisions have not been used to date.

2.
The Commission would like to emphasis that the choice of eradication strategy is not for each
individual farmer to make. The new Directive does confer more responsibility to Member States for the
success of the eradication measures but equally provides more flexibility for the Competent Authorities to
choose the most appropriate methods of control.

3.
The Honourable Member is certainly aware of the announcement made by the Member of the
Commission responsible for Health and Consumer Protection in the Agriculture Council of 22 April 2002
and further to a request of the Parliament regarding the launching of a study on ‘insurance schemes for
farmers’. This is now well advanced and the Commission expects to shortly receive the report that it
commissioned. This report should then be supplemented by consultations with the insurance sector and
other stakeholders. It is, therefore, not yet possible to consider this study as completed and further work
across sectors is required on this highly complex issue.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the current animal
4.
health conditions for imports of meat and dairy products from third countries. Meat derived from
vaccinated animals raised and slaughtered in certain South American countries is sold on the European
market without encountering any problems relating to these aspects. However, the Commission has always
argued for the safety of these products and their wholesomeness for human consumption and will
continue to do so.

5.

The Commission wishes to refer again to Decision 90/424/EEC and Article 11 in particular.

(1) http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/st12/st12430-ad01en03.pdf
(2) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985.
(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2830/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Railways in Greece

The modernisation of Greek railways has been a long-standing target of structural measures and has been
included in all previous support programmes. Does the Commission think that the railways programme
under the second Community Support Framework was properly implemented? What was the rate of
utilisation of funds from the initial and revised budgets for the programme? What information does it have
on the implementation of the project? What railway projects are being funded from the third Community
Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund for the programming period 2000-2006? What has been the
rate of utilisation of these funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The 1994-1999 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme (OP) for the
modernisation of the Greek railways and the related Cohesion Fund projects are currently in the process of
closure in administrative terms. The total programmed ERDF contribution to the OP Railways 1994-1999
was EUR 394 million, of which so far some 92 % has been paid. Under the Cohesion Fund, 1994-1999,
EUR 546 million of assistance was approved for Greek railway projects, of which so far some 86 % has
been paid. The projects concerned primarily the modernisation of important sections of the Korinthos-
Athens-Thessaloniki railway axis and some related lines (such as Thessaloniki-Alexandroupolis and
Paleofarsala-Kalambaka).