KONEČNÉ ZNĚNÍ
A6-0126/2005
29. 4. 2005
*
ZPRÁVA
o návrhu nařízení Rady, kterým se mění nařízení (EHS) č. 2759/75, nařízení (EHS) č. 2771/75, nařízení (EHS) č. 2777/75, nařízení (ES) č. 1254/1999, nařízení (ES) č. 1255/1999 a nařízení (ES) č. 2529/2001,
pokud jde o výjimečná nařízení na podporu trhu
(KOM(2004)0712 – C6‑0220/2004 – 2004/0254(CNS))
Výbor pro zemědělství a rozvoj venkova
Zpravodaj:
Niels Busk
PE 353.736v03-00
Vysvětlivky k označení legislativních postupů
* Postup konzultace
většina odevzdaných hlasů
**I Postup spolupráce (první čtení)
většina odevzdaných hlasů
**II Postup spolupráce (druhé čtení)
většina odevzdaných hlasů pro schválení společného postoje většina hlasů poslanců Parlamentu pro zamítnutí nebo změnu
společného postoje
*** Postup souhlasu většina hlasů poslanců Parlamentu s výjimkou případů uvedených v článcích 105, 107, 161 a 300 Smlouvy o ES a článku 7 Smlouvy o EU
***I Postup spolurozhodování (první čtení)
většina odevzdaných hlasů
***II Postup spolurozhodování (druhé čtení)
většina odevzdaných hlasů pro schválení společného postoje většina hlasů poslanců Parlamentu pro zamítnutí nebo změnu společného postoje
***III Postup spolurozhodování (třetí čtení)
většina odevzdaných hlasů pro schválení společného návrhu
(Druh postupu závisí na právním základu navrženém Komisí.)
Pozměňovací návrhy k legislativnímu textu
V pozměňovacích návrzích Parlamentu je pozměněný text zvýrazněn tučnou kurzívou . Zvýraznění normální kurzívou označuje části legislativního textu, u nichž je navržena oprava, a má sloužit k usnadnění vypracování konečného znění (např. zjevné chyby nebo vynechání textu v některé jazykové verzi). Tyto navržené opravy podléhají dohodě příslušných oddělení.
OBSAH
NÁVRH LEGISLATIVNÍHO USNESENÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU ........................ 4
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ ............................................................................................... 5
POSTUP .................................................................................................................................... 9
NÁVRH LEGISLATIVNÍHO USNESENÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU
o návrhu nařízení Rady, kterým se mění nařízení (EHS) č. 2759/75, nařízení (EHS) č. 2771/75, nařízení (EHS) č. 2777/75, nařízení (ES) č. 1254/1999, nařízení (ES) č. 1255/1999 a nařízení (ES) č. 2529/2001, pokud jde o výjimečná opatření na podporu trhu
( KOM(2004)0712 – C6‑0220/2004 – 2004/0254(CNS) )
(Postup konzultace)
Evropský parlament ,
– s ohledem na návrh Komise předložený Radě ( KOM(2004)0712 )
Dosud nezveřejněný v Úředním věstníku. ,
– s ohledem na článek 36 a 37 Smlouvy o ES, podle kterého byl konzultován Radou ( C6‑0220/2004 ),
– s ohledem na článek 51 jednacího řádu,
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro zemědělství a rozvoj venkova ( A6‑0126/2005 ),
1. zamítá návrh Komise;
2. vyzývá Komisi, aby svůj návrh stáhla a předložila nový návrh;
3. pověřuje svého předsedu, aby předal postoj Parlamentu Radě a Komisi.
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ
Introduction
With this proposal, the Commission seeks to alter the financing of exceptional market support measures applied in the case of outbreaks of infectious diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Classical Swine Fever (CSF).
Under the relevant Council regulations only 100% funding from the EC budget is possible, and this is confirmed by the European Court of Justice’s judgement in Case C-239/01
ECR [2003], p. I-10333. .
The Commission’s argument in favour of co-financing is that the Member States are responsible for the measures to combat infectious veterinary diseases. By also placing a financial responsibility on the Member States, the Commission expects them to do their best in the veterinary and sanitary field to stamp out diseases as quickly as possible and to minimise the costs
The Commission’s other argument for submitting this proposal is that that European Court of Auditors, in its Special Report 1/2000
OJ C 85, 23.5.2000, p. 1-28. on classical swine fever, recommended a strict parallelism regarding the co-financing of veterinary measures and market support measures. The Court of Auditors considers that, if a distinction is drawn, this gives the Member States an incentive to ensure that as much as possible of the costs are financed from exceptional market support measures, where the level of EU funding is highest.
The Commission’s arguments cannot outweigh the particularly negative consequences which the Commission proposal might have for the Common Agricultural Policy in general and the conditions of competition in European agriculture in particular.
The proposal is founded on inadequate grounds, and it does not seem possible to improve it sufficiently by amendments.
The Commission proposal should therefore be rejected in its entirety and the Commission asked to submit a new one.
Re-nationalisation of the Common Agricultural Policy…
The Commission opens the way, with its proposal, for co-financing under the EAGGF Guarantee Section (expenditure area 1A) within the CAP, which – mutatis mutandis – is tantamount to opening the way to the re-nationalisation of the CAP.
The introduction of co-financing would require a new reform of the CAP, which is not realistic at this point, when the latest reform is only in the initial stage of implementation. A new financing model is also not in line with the agreements concluded in connection with the latest round of enlargement of the EU.
The Commission proposal would also open up a risk of the increased spread of veterinary diseases and thus reduce the level of protection in the EU. This could result in the Member States refusing to cooperate, or partly avoiding cooperation, with national co-financing. Farmers in one Member State would then risk receiving lower compensation than farmers in other Member States, thus resulting in less effort being put into combatting infectious veterinary diseases, and a concomitant increased risk of their spread.
…and significantly different conditions of competition
The most important argument against co-financing under the Guarantee Section is that it would mean European farmers being exposed to significantly different market conditions. That also means the end, in practice, of the CAP. This is an argument the Commission itself uses.
One essential reason for rejecting the Commission proposal in its present form is that national co-financing is an unknown quantity, and it is particularly unclear to what extent the national contribution will be paid from the public purse, from the agriculture sector or via para-fiscal levies. It may seem reliable, but is none the less in direct contradiction of the Treaty provisions banning discriminatory treatment on the grounds of nationality.
This problem was also raised by the Court of Auditors, which in its 2004 Annual Report writes that the trend in several Member States towards shifting the co-financing costs to the agriculture sector involves the risk of distorting competition between producers in the EU, and that in such cases, in the Court of Auditors’ view, a Community legal basis therefore should be established for such measures.
Another very important question is to what extent it is in fact legally sustainable to submit a proposal on co-financing within the current Council regulations on market support measures, rather than to submit an amendment to the Financial Regulation, and in particular to the codified Regulation EEC/729/70
OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13-18. on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Prevention is the first step
The Commission is approaching the problem in totally the wrong way, putting the cart before the horse.
At European level a number of measures have been taken to combat infectious veterinary diseases. The Member States are obliged, both legally and morally, to implement these measures, and, as the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that this implementation takes place in full accordance with the letter and spirit of the legislative text.
The ANIMO network
Another important and very valuable instrument in the prevention phase is the Animo network, a computer-based communications network between the veterinary authorities, the ultimate aim of which is to restrict veterinary checks to the place of origin.
When the health of people and animals is at stake, the veterinary authorities in one Member State must be in a position to identify the parties at risk as soon as they are notified of the outbreak of an infectious veterinary disease in another Member State from which animals have been exported to the first Member State.
Animo is the only computer network at EU level which can fulfil this function; the Commission must make the network operate as efficiently as possible in the 25-member EU and ensure that it contains precise, reliable and complete information.
While the failings of Animo are more to do with the way the system is used than with the system itself, it must be an absolute first priority to take note of criticisms and to rectify the failings by improving the system, as well as holding courses or sending out guidelines for the optimum use of the network.
Alternative forms of financing
In the conclusions of the most recent reform of the CAP, adopted in Luxembourg in 2003, the Council had appended to the Commission’s announcement a statement that the Commission would examine specific measures to address risks, crises and natural disasters in agriculture, and submit a report together with proposals to the Council before the end of 2004.
No such report has yet been submitted either to the Council or the European Parliament, in spite of the fact that it should have formed the most important basis of the proposals submitted by the Commission on a new financing structure. The report should contain an examination and analysis of all possible alternative financing possibilities, such as an insurance regulation or a fund financed from the agriculture sector, the Member States and the EU, the Commission investigation should enable a serious political debate to be carried out which can then form the foundation of a decision with a positive effect in the long term too.
A proposal for an altered financing system should also be divided into at least two systems, taking account of the size and extent of the outbreak and the need for action.
Lack of coordination between means and ends
The Commission’s argument, that the Member States will only do their best to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible if they are given the responsibility of co-financing, does not show any great confidence in the EU veterinary provisions, which in any case contain clear instructions on what guidelines should be followed in the event of an outbreak, including restrictions on the movement and transport of animals.
The Member States’ ability to manage and combat an outbreak of an infectious disease depends from the very first moment on the EU decisions being implemented and the EU instruments being effective. Here again it must be stressed that the Animo network is the most effective and reliable database permitting the Member States to detect animals from infected areas, so that these animals can be tested and/or slaughtered.
The export of fresh meat from the EU to third countries depends on the pinpointing and precise registration of possible infection carriers.
Greater efforts towards prevention
A great deal more effort should be put into prevention and into stopping the spread of outbreaks. This can be done by halting all unnecessary transport of animals from one farm to another – since this increases the infection risk in the event of an outbreak – and by introducing a maximum stocking density, thus ensuring that the disease can be effectively combated.
Conclusion
With its proposal, the Commission risks creating uncertainty about veterinary status, level of protection and the EU’s commitment to veterinary health.
Food production within the EU is particularly vulnerable to the outbreak of infectious diseases, which are outside the control of individual farmers. The proposal would create greater uncertainty about, and fear of, the risk of infection in the EU.
The costs to the EU, and to the individual farmer whose herd is hit by an infectious disease, go much further than can be calculated in money terms. In addition to the economic and human costs, there may also be losses of genetically valuable animals and breeding stock which cannot be replaced.
In the light of the above, the Commission’s proposal in its present form must be rejected, and the Commission must be called upon instead to examine alternative financing systems such as the accumulation of a risk fund, insurance regulations, etc., before submitting a new proposal.
POSTUP
Název
Výjimečná opatření na podporu trhu
Referenční údaje
KOM(2000)0712 – C6‑0220/2004 – 2004/0254(CNS)
Právní základ
články 36 a 37 Smlouvy o ES
Základ v jednacím řádu
článek 51
Datum konzultace s EP
3.12.2004
Příslušný výbor Datum oznámení na zasedání
AGRI 14.12.2004
Výbor požádaný o stanovisko Datum oznámení na zasedání
BUDG 14.12.2004
-
-
Nezaujaté stanovisko Datum rozhodnutí
BUDG
31.1.2005
Užší spolupráce Datum oznámení na zasedání
-
Zpravodaj Datum jmenování
Niels Busk 23.11.2004
Předchozí zpravodaj(ové)
-
Zjednodušený postup Datum rozhodnutí
-
Zpochybnění právního základu Datum, kdy Výbor JURI zaujal stanovisko
-
/
-
Změna finanční dotace Datum, kdy Výbor BUDG zaujal stanovisko
-
/
-
Konzultace s Evropským hospodářským a sociálním výborem Datum rozhodnutí na zasedání
-
Konzultace s Výborem regionů Datum rozhodnutí na zasedání
-
Projednání ve výboru
19.1.2005
14.3.2005
26.4.2005
Datum přijetí
26.4.2005
Výsledek závěrečného hlasování
pro:
proti:
zdrželi se:
27
0
2
Členové přítomní při závěrečném hlasování
Filip Adwent, Peter Baco, Katerina Batzeli, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Joseph Daul, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Jean-Claude Fruteau, Ioannis Gklavakis, Lutz Goepel, Bogdan Golik, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, María Esther Herranz García, Mairead McGuinness, Neil Parish, María Isabel Salinas García, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Witold Tomczak, Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski, Janusz Wojciechowski
Náhradníci přítomní při závěrečném hlasování
Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Hans-Peter Mayer, Markus Pieper, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
Náhradníci (čl. 178 odst. 2) přítomní při závěrečném hlasování
Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García
Datum předložení – A6
29.4.2005
A6‑0126/2005
Poznámky
