natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
During the ongoing AI epidemic in some parts of Asia the fatality rate among humans has been very high.
During the ongoing AI epidemic in some parts of Asia the fatality rate among humans has been very high.
The occurrence of AI in birds causes a wide spectrum of symptoms, ranging from mild illness to a highly aggressive, fatal disease that can lead to severe epidemics.
The occurrence of AI in birds causes a wide spectrum of symptoms, ranging from mild illness to a highly aggressive, fatal disease that can lead to severe epidemics.
"Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza" (LPAI) is not dangerous.
'Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza' (LPAI) is not dangerous.
Birds with LPAI are safe to eat and not contagious.
Birds with LPAI are safe to eat and not contagious.
On the other hand “highly pathogenic avian influenza” (HPAI) is characterized by severe illness and rapid death, with a mortality rate that can reach 90%.
On the other hand 'highly pathogenic avian influenza' (HPAI) is characterized by severe illness and rapid death, with a mortality rate that can reach 90%.
The potential danger of LPAI, highlighted by r ecent research, shows that viruses of low pathogenicity can, after circulation for short periods in a poultry population, mutate into highly pathogenic viruses.
The potential danger of LPAI, highlighted by r ecent research, shows that viruses of low pathogenicity can, after circulation for short periods in a poultry population, mutate into highly pathogenic viruses.
This would suggest that the spread of LPAI in domestic poultry, therefore, is a major factor for the mutation of the virus into HPAI, which then causes devastating outbreaks.
This would suggest that the spread of LPAI in domestic poultry, therefore, is a major factor for the mutation of the virus into HPAI, which then causes devastating outbreaks.
The Commission has reacted to this by proposing to revise and update existing Community legislation.
The Commission has reacted to this by proposing to revise and update existing Community legislation.
First of all, the Commission puts forward a proposal for a directive that introduces control measures for both HPAI and LPAI.
First of all, the Commission puts forward a proposal for a directive that introduces control measures for both HPAI and LPAI.
It would repeal Directive 92/40/EEC which establishes compulsory disease control measures only in case of disease in poultry caused by HPAI.
It would repeal Directive 92/40/EEC, which establishes compulsory disease control measures only in case of disease in poultry caused by HPAI.
To ensure adequate financial provisions for the new package of control measures, it is proposed that Council Decision 90/424/EEC should be amended in parallel.
To ensure adequate financial provisions for the new package of control measures, it is proposed that Council Decision 90/424/EEC should be amended in parallel.
Council Decision 90/424/EEC provides financial assistance from the Community to Member States for the eradication of certain animal diseases.
Council Decision 90/424/EEC provides financial assistance from the Community to Member States for the eradication of certain animal diseases.
Currently this assistance is only available for HPAI and not LPAI.
Currently this assistance is only available for HPAI and not LPAI.
The Committee fully endorses the proposed changes to align Decision 90/424/EEC to the new, wider definition of AI that includes both HPAI and LPAI.
The committee fully endorses the proposed changes to align Decision 90/424/EEC to the new, wider definition of AI that includes both HPAI and LPAI.
It does not, however, agree with the proposed financial contribution of 30% to Member States for costs which they incur in the event of a stamping out policy being applied following outbreaks of LPAI.
It does not, however, agree with the proposed financial contribution of 30% to Member States for costs which they incur in the event of a stamping-out policy being applied following outbreaks of LPAI.
The Commission argues that this reduced contribution, in comparison with the proposed 50% for costs related to an outbreak of HPAI, is justified due to the reduced risk from LPAI.
The Commission argues that this reduced contribution, in comparison with the proposed 50% for costs related to an outbreak of HPAI, is justified due to the reduced risk from LPAI.
They believe that Member States should maintain the option not to apply a stamping-out policy in event of a LPAI outbreak if they so wish, and suspect that a higher percentage contribution might influence the decision making process of Member States.
It believes that Member States should maintain the option not to apply a stamping-out policy in event of a LPAI outbreak if they so wish, and suspects that a higher percentage contribution might influence the decision-making process of Member States.
Although the Committee fully understands the reasoning of the Commission, it feels that an equal Community contribution of 50%, to both HPAI and LPAI is appropriate for two reasons:
Although the committee fully understands the reasoning of the Commission, it feels that an equal Community contribution of 50%, to both HPAI and LPAI, is appropriate for two reasons:
1) The risks of sending an unclear, confusing message to the public outweighs any potential cost saving in the Commission's argument.
1) The risks of sending an unclear, confusing message to the public outweigh any potential cost saving in the Commission's argument.
If the point of amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC is to acknowledge that LPAI is potentially dangerous it is surely illogical to assert, through a proposed difference in financial assistance, that LPAI is 20% less dangerous than HPAI.
If the point of amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC is to acknowledge that LPAI is potentially dangerous it is surely illogical to assert, through a proposed difference in financial assistance, that LPAI is 20% less dangerous than HPAI.
Either it is dangerous or it is not.
Either it is dangerous or it is not.
In dealing with public reaction following an outbreak every possible effort must be taken to minimise inconsistency and misleading information.
In dealing with public reaction following an outbreak every possible effort must be taken to minimise inconsistency and misleading information.
2) As an outbreak of LPAI might, depending on the circumstances, also necessitate a stamping out of the animals concerned, the Commission's argument only applies to a limited number of cases.
2) As an outbreak of LPAI might, depending on the circumstances, also necessitate a stamping-out of the animals concerned, the Commission's argument only applies to a limited number of cases.
In these cases, where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter, they should be encouraged to take a rapid, but considered, decision based on animal and human health concerns rather than being influenced by incentives of an economic nature.
In these cases, where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter, they should be encouraged to take a rapid, but considered, decision based on animal and human health concerns rather than being influenced by incentives of an economic nature.
Výbor pro životní prostředí, veřejné zdraví a bezpečnost potravin vyzývá Výbor pro zemědělství a rozvoj venkova jako příslušný výbor, aby do své zprávy začlenil tyto pozměňovací návrhy:
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
The risk of sending an unclear, confusing message to the public outweighs any potential cost saving in the Commission's argument.
The risk of sending an unclear, confusing message to the public outweighs any potential cost saving in the Commission's argument.
Every possible effort must be taken to minimise inconsistency and misleading information.
Every possible effort must be taken to minimise inconsistency and misleading information.
In cases where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter the decision should be based on health concerns rather than economic incentives.
In cases where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter the decision should be based on health concerns rather than economic incentives.
- v případě vysoce patogenní formy influenzy ptáků 50 % a v případě nízkopatogenní formy influenzy ptáků 50 % výdajů vynaložených členským státem jako náhrada vlastníkům za poražení, zničení zvířat a jejich produktů, za očistu a dezinfekci hospodářství a vybavení a za zničení kontaminovaných krmiv a kontaminovaného vybavení, jestliže ho nelze dezinfikovat,
- in the case of highly pathogenic avian influenza 50% and in the case of low pathogenic avian influenza 50% of the following costs, incurred by the Member State in compensating livestock owners for the killing, the destruction of animals, the destruction of animal products, the cleaning and disinfection of holdings and equipment, the destruction of the contaminated feedingstuffs and for the destruction of contaminated equipment, where such equipment cannot be disinfected,
In cases where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter the decision should be based on health concerns rather than economic incentives .
In cases where Member States will have to decide whether to kill or to slaughter the decision should be based on health concerns rather than economic incentives.
The Commission envisages updating current procedures governing the Community’s financial contribution towards veterinary measures laid down in Council Decision 90/424/EEC
The Commission envisages updating current procedures governing the Community’s financial contribution towards veterinary measures laid down in Council Decision 90/424/EEC
The proposed changes in Community legislation on Avian Influenza (AI) control should be made in parallel with amendments to Council Directive 92/40/EEC on Community measures for the control of Avian Influenza.
The proposed changes in Community legislation on Avian Influenza (AI) control should be made in parallel with amendments to Council Directive 92/40/EEC on Community measures for the control of Avian Influenza.
The current proposal seeks to allow:
The current proposal seeks to allow:
- Community financial assistance to be granted for those eradication measures carried out by the Member States to combat avian influenza virus strains of Low Pathogenicity AI (LPAI) which may mutate into Highly Pathogenic AI (HPAI) strains.
- Community financial assistance to be granted for those eradication measures carried out by the Member States to combat avian influenza virus strains of Low Pathogenicity AI (LPAI) which may mutate into Highly Pathogenic AI (HPAI) strains.
In this context, two different levels of financial assistance are foreseen: 50% in case of HPAI and 30% for LPAI.
In this context, two different levels of financial assistance are foreseen: 50% in case of HPAI and 30% for LPAI.
This is intended to cover expenditure by the Member States to compensate livestock owners for the slaughter and destruction of animals, animal products and other matters;
This is intended to cover expenditure by the Member States to compensate livestock owners for the slaughter and destruction of animals, animal products and other matters;
- the financial contribution by the Community to exceed the figure of 50% in view of the development of the situation in the Community;
- the financial contribution by the Community to exceed the figure of 50% in view of the development of the situation in the Community;
- the coverage of 100% of the cost of vaccines and 50% of the cost involved in carrying out that vaccination.
- the coverage of 100% of the cost of vaccines and 50% of the cost involved in carrying out that vaccination.
The estimated cost of these series of new actions are € 3 to 8 million per year, or €5.5 million on average.
The estimated cost of these series of new actions are € 3 to 8 million per year, or €5.5 million on average.
They are distributed in Chapter 17 04 — Food safety, animal health, animal welfare and plant health over three different budget lines (17 04 01, 17 04 02 and 17 04 03) according to their objectives: the extension of the surveillance programmes to AI, the extension of emergency measures to eradicate LPAI and HPAI and the establishment of an AI vaccine bank.
They are distributed in Chapter 17 04 — Food safety, animal health, animal welfare and plant health over three different budget lines (17 04 01, 17 04 02 and 17 04 03) according to their objectives: the extension of the surveillance programmes to AI, the extension of emergency measures to eradicate LPAI and HPAI and the establishment of an AI vaccine bank.
Although the draftsman welcomes the proposal, he is concerned about the financial impact for the EU budget of possible future outbreaks of AI and other contagious animal diseases within the EU.
Although the draftsman welcomes the proposal, he is concerned about the financial impact for the EU budget of possible future outbreaks of AI and other contagious animal diseases within the EU.
There are only limited funds available in the EU budget for cofinancing the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseasesand as it is likely that an outbreak might occur in the coming years, the costs will far exceed the financial appropriations available.
There are only limited funds available in the EU budget for cofinancing the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseases and as it is likely that an outbreak might occur in the coming years, the costs will far exceed the financial appropriations available.
In such a case, the deficit has to be made up within the agricultural heading of the EU budget.
In such a case, the deficit has to be made up within the agricultural heading of the EU budget.
The agricultural budget is expected to become increasingly tight as a consequence of the ceiling laid down in the 2002 agreement on agricultural spending and the phasing-in of direct income support in the New Member States.
The agricultural budget is expected to become increasingly tight as a consequence of the ceiling laid down in the 2002 agreement on agricultural spending and the phasing-in of direct income support in the new Member States.
This will make it increasingly difficult to find funds in the event of an outbreak and it will then most probably become necessary to cut the levels of direct income support for farmers in the old Member States.
This will make it increasingly difficult to find funds in the event of an outbreak and it will then most probably become necessary to cut the levels of direct income support for farmers in the old Member States.
Levels of income support in the new Member States were laid down in the accession treaties and are therefore fixed until 2013.
Levels of income support in the new Member States were laid down in the accession treaties and are therefore fixed until 2013.
Cuts in the levels of income support for farmers in the old Member States are undesirable as the European government should be a trustworthy party and live up to its previous commitments.
Cuts in the levels of income support for farmers in the old Member States are undesirable as the European government should be a trustworthy party and live up to its previous commitments.
Moreover, cuts might already be necessary , irrespective of outbreaks of animal diseases and this would render additional cuts even more undesirable.
Moreover, cuts might already be necessary, irrespective of outbreaks of animal diseases and this would render additional cuts even more undesirable.
The draftsman therefore suggests the creation of a European animal health fund , which could cover the financial needs arising from future outbreaks of contagious animal diseases.
The draftsman therefore suggests the creation of a European animal health fund , which could cover the financial needs arising from future outbreaks of contagious animal diseases.
Farmers, those affected by such events and business could contribute to such a fund.
Farmers, those affected by such events and business could contribute to such a fund.
This would also create a level playing field amongst farmers in the different Member States as the contributions to the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseases differ dramatically between Member States.
This would also create a level playing field amongst farmers in the different Member States as the contributions to the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseases differ dramatically between Member States.
In the absence of such a fund, the European Commission and the Member States should seek to harmonise their financing models of the national cofinancing portion of the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseases.
In the absence of such a fund, the European Commission and the Member States should seek to harmonise their financing models of the national cofinancing portion of the costs of outbreaks of contagious animal diseases.
Currently some Member States have established their own animal health funds, which (partly) cover the national cofinancing portion of outbreaks, whereas in other Member States the sector does not contribute to the costs of outbreaks.
Currently some Member States have established their own animal health funds, which (partly) cover the national cofinancing portion of outbreaks, whereas in other Member States the sector does not contribute to the costs of outbreaks.
The Council should find an agreement as to how the costs should be divided between the national governments and the sector.
The Council should find an agreement as to how the costs should be divided between the national governments and the sector.
A uniform division of these costs would eliminate the current distortion of competition between farmers in the different Member States.
A uniform division of these costs would eliminate the current distortion of competition between farmers in the different Member States.
In addition to these matters, it is also important to take on board the conclusions of the study in progress on a risk-financing model for livestock epidemics in the EU.
In addition to these matters, it is also important to take on board the conclusions of the study in progress on a risk-financing model for livestock epidemics in the EU.
In the explanatory memorandum to the Council Decision, the Commission argues that a lower contribution in the event of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) outbreaks compared to High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) (30% and 50% respectively) would be justified by "the fact that MSs should keep the option not to apply a stamping-out policy in case of LPAI.
In the explanatory memorandum to the Council decision, the Commission argues that a lower contribution in the event of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) outbreaks compared to High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) (30% and 50% respectively) would be justified by 'the fact that MSs should keep the option not to apply a stamping-out policy in case of LPAI.
A higher Community contribution might induce them not to make adequate use of this option".
A higher Community contribution might induce them not to make adequate use of this option'.
The draftsman welcomes the Commission's apparent commitment to minimising the use of stamping-out policies but believes that additional provisions have to be made in order to give the right stimulus to Member States to allow them to make optimum use of the non-stamping-out policy options available.
The draftsman welcomes the Commission's apparent commitment to minimising the use of stamping-out policies but believes that additional provisions have to be made in order to give the right stimulus to Member States to allow them to make optimum use of the non-stamping-out policy options available.
In the event of an outbreak of LPAI, a Member State can choose between culling animals and bringing the animals to a slaughterhouse.
In the event of an outbreak of LPAI, a Member State can choose between culling animals and bringing the animals to a slaughterhouse.
No financial compensation is available for the latter option, the reasoning being that the slaughter value of the animals will compensate farmers for the removal of their animals.
No financial compensation is available for the latter option, the reasoning being that the slaughter value of the animals will compensate farmers for the removal of their animals.
However, animals often represent a higher economic value than their slaughter value at that specific moment.
However, animals often represent a higher economic value than their slaughter value at that specific moment.
For instance, young laying hens represent a certain economic value, based on their expected laying qualities.
For instance, young laying hens represent a certain economic value, based on their expected laying qualities.
Therefore, the slaughter value of animals will often not be an adequate compensation for farmers and Member States themselves would have to bridge the gap.
Therefore, the slaughter value of animals will often not be an adequate compensation for farmers and Member States themselves would have to bridge the gap.
In order to balance the choice between culling and slaughtering, which should be based on ethical and veterinary grounds and not on financial grounds, equal compensation should be given by the EU to Member States for the difference between the economic value and the slaughter value of animals.
In order to balance the choice between culling and slaughtering, which should be based on ethical and veterinary grounds and not on financial grounds, equal compensation should be given by the EU to Member States for the difference between the economic value and the slaughter value of animals.
Indeed, the Council Regulations concerning exceptional market measures should be brought in line with the amendments proposed to the Council Decision on expenditure in the veterinary field.
Indeed, the Council regulations concerning exceptional market measures should be brought in line with the amendments proposed to the Council decision on expenditure in the veterinary field.
More or less the same criteria apply for the compensation for the removal of eggs.
More or less the same criteria apply for the compensation for the removal of eggs.
Farmers should be adequately compensated on the basis of the economic value of their eggs and the gap between the economic value and the value given by the chosen destination should also be cofinanced by the EU.
Farmers should be adequately compensated on the basis of the economic value of their eggs and the gap between the economic value and the value given by the chosen destination should also be cofinanced by the EU.
This would allow Member States to make a reasonable choice, based primarily on veterinary criteria and collaterally on an equal economic basis.
This would allow Member States to make a reasonable choice, based primarily on veterinary criteria and collaterally on an equal economic basis.
Moreover, Member States should differentiate in their compensation for eggs according to the different kinds of eggs recognised and this compensation should be cofinanced by the EU accordingly
Moreover, Member States should differentiate in their compensation for eggs according to the different kinds of eggs recognised and this compensation should be cofinanced by the EU accordingly
Different compensation should for instance be given for normal table eggs, free range table eggs, organic table eggs, hatching eggs for meat races, hatching eggs for laying races, hatching eggs for parental stock of meat races, hatching eggs for parental stock of laying races, duck eggs, duck hatchings eggs, turkey eggs, turkey laying eggs, pheasant eggs and pheasant laying eggs. .
Different compensation should for instance be given for normal table eggs, free-range table eggs, organic table eggs, hatching eggs for meat races, hatching eggs for laying races, hatching eggs for parental stock of meat races, hatching eggs for parental stock of laying races, duck eggs, duck hatchings eggs, turkey eggs, turkey laying eggs, pheasant eggs and pheasant laying eggs. .
Pozměňovací návrhy 1, 2 a 3
Amendments 1, 2 and 3