|
Q1. WHAT ARE
THE MAIN PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED?
It is fair to
acknowledge the achievements of the Community
Animal Health Policy (CAHP) over the years. It
has enabled the EU to implement the internal
market system in which animal health inspections
are carried out at point of origin and not at
internal borders. It has also contributed greatly
to the eradication of many serious diseases which
represent obstacles to free movement of animals
and their products, and allows the single market
to function normally.
Nevertheless the crises
experienced by the European Union in the
livestock sector, caused by the occurrence of
wide spread diseases or by events calling into
question the safety of the food chain, have
highlighted the need to consider the adequacy of
the following aspects of CAHP and its financial
instrument:
- the development of a
policy of prevention;
-
- necessity to finance
new actions to ensure a high level of health at
the start of the food chain (strengthening of
measures to combat zoonoses like
salmonella);
-
- exhausting of
resources and financial dependence on the
Common Agriculture Policy (Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy and Foot and Mouth Disease) or
Fisheries structural funds (exotic
diseases);
-
- necessity to improve
the competitiveness of Community livestock
(international obligations);
-
- financial
responsibility among the operators in the food
chain;
Q2. WHAT ARE
THE MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES?
A Commission
Communication on the CAHP strategy
(2007-2013):
- to present the
Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP);
-
- to present
clear objectives reflecting customer
priorities;
-
- to ensure the
coherence of CAHP with the
other EU policies and international
agreements (SPS);
-
- to aim at minimising
the regulatory burden -
simplification -> animal health
legislative package;
-
- to provide the CAHP
with an
appropriate budget (Community financial
perspectives 2007-2013) and an adequate
financial instrument.
This Communication
would also include an
action plan for this strategy which would
be regularly reviewed.
Q3. WHAT ARE
THE POLICY OPTIONS? WHAT REGULATORY OR
NON-REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS COULD BE
CONSIDERED?
A pro-active option has actually already
been chosen with the active support of the
Council and the Parliament.
Several actions have
been launched to reflect on the issues raised by
the current "veterinary" policy:
(i) after the
organisation of the
Foot and Mouth Disease conference by the
Belgian Presidency (12/2001), the Spanish
Presidency intended to stimulate a
discussion in the Council (2002) on the
need for the Community to have a
veterinary policy with a financial instrument
that would enable it to fulfil the objectives
defined in the White Paper on Food Safety (2000)
Memoranda 7639/02 and
Memorandum 9552/02 of
the Spanish Presidency on the European Union's
Veterinary Fund.
(ii) Health and
Consumer Directorate-General presented a
working document on a multi annual programme
approach on animal diseases eradication,
control and monitoring to the Chief Veterinary
Officers on the 22nd of September 2004. The
purpose of this
document is
to outline the future approach for animal
disease and zoonoses eradication and control
and monitoring programmes co-financed by the
Community. The document was well received by
all the delegations that supported the proposal
in its totality.
(iii) In 2003, the
Commission services have carried out a
first
pilot study on the risk financing model for
livestock epidemics (state of play)
. With the
support of the European Parliament, a
complementary study will be performed in
2005.
(iv)After the organisation of a
conference
on Emerging Zoonotic Diseases in September
2004
, the Dutch
Presidency is organizing in
December
2004 a conference
on the
material and immaterial costs of animal disease
control, with the support of the
Commission.
(v) At the initiative
of the Commission, an animal health "
Technology
Platform"
is being
set up, which bring together companies,
research institutions, the financial world and
the regulatory authorities at the European
level to
define a common research agenda which
should mobilise a critical mass of national and
European public and private resources. This
project will be industry driven to develop and
deliver the most up-to-date tools (e.g. new
vaccines or tests) to control animal diseases
of major importance to Europe and to the rest
of the world.
(vi) In 2004, the
Commission requested the
European Food Safety
Agency (EFSA) for a scientific opinion
* on
assessments of the risk of introduction into
the EU of major animal diseases from developing
countries, as well as an assessment of the
reduction of the risk through interventions in
these countries. (
*opinion
expected by mid-2005)
(vii) A systematic
and timely evaluation of its expenditure
programmes is an established priority for the
European Commission (EC), as a means of
accounting for the management of allocated
funds and as a way of promoting improved
future performance, the Health and Consumer
Directorate-General plans to launch an
external evaluation
* of the CAHP in
2005.
Considering the
multiple ongoing actions, it is in the interest
of all stakeholders that the Commission
presents a coordinated and coherent approach
aimed at providing the Community with an
"overarching" guidance in the animal health
area to complete "the farm to table"
approach.
A Regulation
and/or a Directive cannot be considered as
practical options to present a policy strategy
and an implementation plan. Instead, a
Communication of the Commission to the
European parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committe and the Committee of the
Regions is the most appropriate option.
The
Communication will invite the European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions
and all interested parties to support the
overall strategy, to foster the adoption of key
measures proposed and to support their
implementation.
Q4. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS
LIKELY TO RESULT FROM EACH POLICY OPTION AND
WHO IS AFFECTED? WHICH IMPACTS ARE
LIKELY TO WARRANT FURTHER ANALYSIS OF (cf. list
of impacts in the enclosed guide)?
The external
evaluation
*
of the CAHP will be a key element in
building the CAHP strategy. It will be
based on a
participative approach from the
preparation phase to the dissemination phase.
All
ongoing initiatives already taken by the
Commission services and other stakeholders will
be taken into account by the evaluation team.
Final conclusions and recommendations can be
expected by mid-2006. Policy options and their
impacts (economic, environmental and social)
will be studied through this evaluation
process, and will form part of the final impact
assessment.
Q5. WHAT INFORMATION AND DATA
IS ALREADY AVAILABLE? WHAT FURTHER
INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE GATHERED?
HOW WILL THIS BE DONE (e.g.
INTERNALLY OR BY AN EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR) AND BY
WHEN?
- Scope of the
evaluation : a broad approach:
-
- The evaluation will cover the
Commission's actions in the field of animal
health and operations in support of animal
health.
- Key evaluative
questions:
-
- The evaluation of the European
Commission's strategy for animal health will be
based on a set of key analytical questions
related to the critical issues,
(within Commission services - in the
Inter-service Steering Group - &
consultation of the Member States).
- .
Q6. WHICH
STAKEHOLDERS & EXPERTS WILL BE CONSULTED, HOW
AND AT WHAT STAGE?
All stakeholders will
be consulted during the evaluation process (from
the preparation phase starting in October 2004 to
the dissemination phase ending in the 4th quarter
of 2006) - a web site related to the evaluation
will be created shortly.
Q7. WILL AN
INTER-SERVICE STEERING GROUP BE SET UP FOR THE
"IMPACT ASSESSMENT"?
A steering group will
be set up by the end of January 2005 consisting
of members of the Health and Consumer Protection
Directorate-General services, the European Food
Safety Agency (EFSA) as well as other relevant
Directorate-Generals (BUDGET, AGRI (Agriculture),
RELEX family (External Relations), FISH
(Fisheries), TAXUD (Taxation & Customs
Union), RTD (Research), ENV (Environment), OLAF
(European Anti-Fraud Office)) & 2 or 3
experts from Member States. Meeting frequency: 4
times.
| 
