Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the:

- 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 90/539/EEC on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and hatching eggs', and

- 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/494/EEC on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultry meat' ()

(96/C 153/10)

On 18 January 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 February 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Leif Nielsen.

At its 333rd Plenary Session on 28 and 29 February 1996 (meeting of 29 February), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a substantial majority, with two dissenting votes and three abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Directives 90/539/EEC and 91/494/EEC introduced a set of veterinary arrangements relating to poultry, hatching eggs and fresh poultry meat being transported within the EU or imported from third countries, to prevent the spread of infectious poultry diseases. Generally, the rules cover all infectious poultry diseases but particular mention is made of health guarantees for trade in poultry, poultry meat and hatching eggs which are sent from Member States or areas of the EU which vaccinate against Newcastle disease to areas with non-vaccinating status.

1.2. Under Article 12(4) of Directive 90/539/EEC and Article 3A(1) of Directive 91/494/EEC the two Directives should have been reviewed in the light of application of harmonized standards for vaccines against Newcastle disease by 31 December 1994 at the latest. The proposed amending Directives should be seen against this background. They are intended to simplify the health guarantees that are applicable and have been made possible by Commission Decision

93/152/EEC on harmonized standards for vaccine use.

1.3. The Commission proposes to allow the import of live poultry and hatching eggs from third countries after a period of quarantine or isolation not exceeding two months. However, the Commission also proposes allowing for a departure from the rules on the import of poultry and hatching eggs from third countries under specific circumstances.

1.4. Lastly, it is proposed that ratites, which up to now have been covered by the derogations for smaller consignments of poultry in chiefly non-commercial trade, should be included in the general provisions because of the risks of disease.

2. General comments

2.1. For animal health, economic and trade policy reasons, the Committee recommends that the harmonization of veterinary standards should continue to operate at a high level. In its Opinion of 31 May 1989, which preceded adoption of the Directives currently in force, the Committee highlighted the need to lay down a general framework for animal health policy as a whole and recommended that the Commission should draw up a proposal for a 'framework Directive' on the overall strategy for veterinary policy in the EU. The Committee feels that there is still a need for such a proposal in the light of experience and the forthcoming enlargement to encompass the Eastern and Central European countries.

2.2. As regards the deadlines laid down in the Directives, the Committee feels that the Commission, the Council and the Member States should try to set realistic deadlines and do their best to keep to them. The continuing failure to meet deadlines leads to a lack of respect for compliance with the rules among authorities and others concerned. This lack of respect can have serious consequences, especially in the field of animal health.

2.3. The Committee also regrets, e.g. with regard to Directive 90/539/EEC, that it is extremely difficult and time-consuming to gain an overview of the current legal situation including the proposed modifications as a consequence of earlier corrections. The Committee therefore urges the Council to find a way to make consolidated texts available for interested parties, perhaps by electronic means.

2.4. Newcastle disease is a serious infectious poultry disease and the infection can be spread both by direct contact and through the air over short distances. Infected animals are destroyed in accordance with Directive 92/66/EEC. This Directive also provides for preventive vaccination. Denmark, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Finland and Sweden have opted for non-vaccinating status, which has been approved. In addition, Directive 92/66/EEC allows emergency vaccination as a means of containing the fast spread of the disease.

2.5. The Committee feels that the next step should be to work towards a non-vaccinating status for the entire EU and thereby end its division into two areas. It must, however, be admitted that this will not be feasible in the foreseeable future.

2.6. The Council also confirmed this objective of stamping out the diseases by adopting Directive 92/66/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease and Directive 92/40/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza.

2.7. The Committee acknowledges that the Commission Decision 93/152/EEC laying down harmonized standards for the use of vaccines in the context of routine vaccination programmes allows a simplification of certain health guarantees.

2.8. The present proposal is particularly concerned with health guarantees for the import of poultry and poultry products from third countries. The Committee feels it is crucial that such imports should not pose a threat to existing veterinary and animal health rules in the EU.

2.9. With regard to enlargement to Eastern and Central Europe, it is important that the Commission should already be gathering detailed information on the disease situation in those countries and making sure that they will be able, in terms of both administration and production, to meet the EU's veterinary requirements when enlargement takes place.

2.10. The Committee also urges the Commission to ensure that the legislation and official arrangements for checking and authorizing additives in feedingstuffs in the country of origin at least correspond to EU rules.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Laying down criteria for the use of vaccines against Newcastle disease will ensure that live, attenuated and inactivated vaccines fulfil certain conditions. In spite of this there is still a risk of the disease being spread from vaccinated animals. It has been scientifically proven that a virulent virus can be transmitted to properly vaccinated and apparently healthy animals where it can multiply and be excreted. In areas where the Newcastle disease virus does not occur the most effective measure is to prevent the introduction of the virus into the area, farm or flock concerned. Though vaccination is desirable and recommended primarily as a preventive measure, under no circumstances can it replace proper management and hygiene with poultry flocks.

3.2. The removal of the special guarantees contained in Article 12(1b) of Directive 90/539/EEC Article 12(1b) concerning consignments of day-old chicks from Member States or areas which vaccinate against Newcastle disease to Member States or areas which do not, gives some cause for concern. In practice there are various areas of uncertainty, such as the possibility of noncompliance with the rules, which lead to a risk of the infection being transmitted, e.g. in the case of day-old chicks. It should therefore be a requirement for incubation and hatching that hatcheries where day-old chicks have been vaccinated should be strictly separated from hatcheries whose chicks have not been vaccinated.

3.3. Conditions regarding vertical transmission of a vaccine virus have still not been satisfactorily ascertained. Given adequate hygiene arrangements, there would seem to be only a limited risk of vertical transmission of Newcastle disease. The existing requirement in Article 12 (1a) on hatching eggs can therefore be deleted as proposed.

3.4. It is quite justified that ratites and their eggs should be subject to the stricter rules governing checks on the flock of origin irrespective of whether smaller numbers are involved. As outdoor birds, ratites are at greater risk and less is known about the pattern of disease among them.

3.5. The Committee endorses the proposal that the Commission should have the option of imposing quarantine or isolation for two months in the case of imports of poultry, hatching eggs or chicks from these eggs from third countries.

3.6. The reason given by the Commission for the proposed option to depart from the general rules set out in Articles 20 to 24 of Directive 90/539/EEC in the case of imports from third countries is so that it can take account of specific situations. The Committee would urge that this option should not be used in a way which undermines a high level of compliance with the EU's veterinary regulations.

3.7. The Committee recommends strict measures such as the use of sentinel birds.

3.8. Abolition of the provisions contained in Articles 3A(1) and (6) of Directive 91/494/EEC on the shipment of fresh poultry meat must be seen as an acceptable consequence of harmonized standards for vaccine use.

Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 15, 20. 1. 1996, pp. 13-15.

APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

As a result of the adoption of an amendment during the debate, the following passage in the Section Opinion was reworded:

Point 2.5

'The Section feels that the next step should be to work towards non-vaccinating status for the whole EU, at relatively high level, to end the division of the EU into a vaccinating area and a non-vaccinating area.'

Result of the vote

For: 25, against: 12, abstentions: 7.