Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (COM(2005) 362 final — 2005/0153 CNS)
Date: 2006-02-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, aquaculture, disease prevention, fish disease, health control, health legislation, veterinary legislation

11.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/13

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive
on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the preven-
tion and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals and the Proposal for a Council Decision
amending Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

(COM(2005) 362 final — 2005/0153 and 0154 CNS)

(2006/C 88/04)

On 15 September 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 25 January 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Fakas.

At its 424th plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2006 (meeting of 14 February), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 145 votes with one abstention.

1. Conclusion

The EESC considers the proposals put forward to be a
1.1
move in the right direction and endorses the measures recom-
mended to prevent and control certain diseases in aquatic
animals.

2. Explanatory statement

Aquaculture is a very important sector for the Com-
2.1
munity, especially in rural and coastal regions. In 2004, the EU
aquaculture sector was producing fish, molluscs and crusta-
ceans to a value of over EUR 2.5 billion. However, financial
losses due to disease (mortalities, reduced growth and reduced
quality) are estimated to be 20 % of the production value. The
proposal aims to introduce modern and targeted legislation
that reduces these costs; if they could be reduced by only 20 %,
the result would be an added value of EUR 100 million per
year.

2.2
The existing legislation was developed two decades ago
when the EU had only 12 Member States. It was primarily
designed to protect the main EU aquaculture species at that
time, namely salmonid (trout and salmon) and oyster farming.
The legislation now needs to be updated to reflect the broader
range of aquaculture practises and species that are found in the
expanded EU, and to take account of the significant develop-
ments within the industry, the experience gained through 15
years of application of the existing legislation, as well as scien-
tific advances in this field. The rules must also be updated to
bring EU rules in line with international agreements and stan-
dards (like the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Sani-
tary and Phytosanitary Measures and the World Organisation
for Animal Health).

3. Background

3.1
This proposal will repeal the existing primary legislation
(Council Directives 91/67/EEC, 93/53/EEC and 95/70/EC) and
replace those three Directives with one new Directive. The
purpose of the new directive is to update, recast and consoli-
date the animal health rules in relation to the trade in aquacul-
ture products,
in
order to improve the competitiveness of EU aquaculture produ-
cers.

including disease prevention and control,

3.2
It contains general requirements directed towards the
aquaculture production business and processing establishments,
such as authorisations, and provisions related to their opera-
tion.

3.3
It provides for animal health rules governing the placing
on the market of aquaculture animals and products, as well as
health rules on imports into the Community of aquaculture
animals from third countries.

3.4
Provisions are proposed for the notification and control
of certain diseases, as well provisions for declaring disease-free
zones.

3.5
Requirements are also to be introduced for the compe-
tent authorities of the Member States and for laboratories, and
guidelines are also laid down in annexes.

3.6
The legal basis for the proposal is Treaty Article 37. The
principle of proportionality is to apply, and the financial
impact on the Community budget is expected to be limited.

The budget implications of the proposal mainly concern

3.7
two areas:

a) economic compensation in relation to disease control, and

b) implementation of primary legislation and adoption and

management of secondary legislation.

3.8
The second proposal for a Council decision envisages
the necessary amendments of the current procedures governing
the Community's financial contribution towards veterinary
measures in aquaculture animals, laid down in Council Deci-
sion 90/424/EEC, in order to take into account the proposals
for a new aquatic animal health Directive and the European
Fisheries Fund.

3.9
Under the second proposal Member States are allowed
to use the budget set up under Operational Programmes
according to Title ΙΙΙ of the European Fisheries Fund for the
combating and eradication of certain diseases in aquaculture
animals.

3.10
The procedures for financial support must be in line
with the current procedures applicable to financial contribution
for control and eradication of terrestrial animal diseases.

C 88/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.4.2006

3.11
The principle of proportionality also applies for the
second proposal, and likewise the legal basis is Treaty Article
37.

3.12
Under the second proposal future financial contribu-
tions for aquatic animal disease eradication from the Com-
munity should be eligible through the European Fisheries Fund
(Article 32 of COM(2004) 497). It is therefore difficult to esti-
mate the impact of the proposal on the European Fisheries
Fund, as this will depend on the size of the farm(s) affected, the
value of the animals in farm(s), etc.

4. General comments

4.1
Existing Community legislation only covers the farming
of salmon, trout and oysters. Since that legislation was adopted,
the aquaculture industry (farming of crustaceans, mussels,
clams, etc.) has developed significantly. The EESC therefore
believes it is advisable and necessary to amend the legislation
so as to cover the other aquatic animals cultivated by aquacul-
ture producers.

The EESC welcomes these proposals because they repre-
4.2
sent an important effort to prevent and control diseases in
aquatic animals.

4.3
The EESC believes that in order to ensure the rational
development of the aquaculture sector and to increase produc-
tivity, aquatic animal health rules should be laid down at Com-
munity level. These rules are necessary in order to contribute
to the completion of the internal market and to avoid the
spread of infectious diseases. Legislation should be flexible and
take into account developments in and the diversity of the
sector.

4.4
The EESC thinks that measures at Community level
should be accompanied by efforts to increase the awareness
and preparedness of the competent authorities in the Member
States with respect to the prevention, control and eradication
of aquatic animal diseases.

The current EU system for granting authorisations is
4.5
particularly strict,
laying down requirements that are more
rigorous than those of the EU's competitors. This has implica-
tions for the viability of the sector. The EESC believes that the
requirements are covered by the proposed register of busi-
nesses, which contains details of each business's processing
the aquaculture business operator and the existing
system,
aquaculture authorisation.

4.6
It is considered necessary to ensure that aquatic animal
diseases at Community level do not spread. It is therefore essen-
tial for harmonised health provisions to be established for the
placing on the market of aquaculture products, and for a list of
diseases and susceptible species to be drawn up.

Brussels, 14 February 2006.

4.7
The EESC believes that in order to ensure early detection
of any possible outbreak of aquatic animal disease, it is neces-
sary to oblige those in contact with aquatic animals of suscep-
tible species to notify any suspect case to the competent autho-
rities.

4.8
Routine, non-routine and emergency inspections should
be carried out in the Member States in order to ensure that
aquaculture production business operators are familiar with,
and apply, the general rules on disease control.

4.9
There is a continuous development in knowledge with
respect to hitherto unknown diseases in aquatic animals. The
EESC therefore believes it is essential for all the Member States
and the Commission to be informed if an emerging disease is
present or suspected, and to be notified of any control
measures taken.

4.10
In order to safeguard the aquatic animal health situa-
tion in the Community, it is considered necessary to ensure
that consignments of
transiting
through the Community comply with the relevant health
requirements. It is also necessary to ensure that aquaculture
animals and products imported from third countries are free of
any infectious diseases.

live aquaculture animals

5. Specific comments

controlled conditions

The EESC accepts the view that special provisions
5.1
should not be laid down applicable to the placing on the
market of ornamental and other aquatic animals, which are
kept under
(aquariums or ponds).
However, where such aquatic animals are kept outside closed
systems or aquariums, or come into contact with the natural
waters of the Community, the EESC considers that the general
health provisions of the present directive should apply. This is
particularly the case for carp populations (Cyprinidae), as
popular ornamental fish such as koi-carp are susceptible to
certain diseases.

5.2
The Member States must lay down rules on penalties
applicable for infringements of the provisions of the directive.
The EESC considers that those penalties must be effective.

Article 5 (2) states that before a Member State decides
5.3
to refuse to authorise an aquaculture production business as
defined in Article 4, consideration should be given to risk miti-
gation strategies,
including possible alternative siting of the
activity in question. However, the EESC is aware that alternative
siting is often not feasible in the case of tanks containing
zoonotic agents among wild fish stocks. The EESC believes that
the risk of such diseases can be mitigated by sound manage-
ment practices, keeping such stocks in closed and controlled
systems, maintaining good hygiene practices, and applying the
animal health monitoring system and all the other measures
proposed in the present Council directive.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND