THE MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL COSTS OF ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL. Conference organised by the Dutch Presidency. Brussels, December 2004 * * *

Transcription

1 Rue de la Science b.p. 3 B-1040 Bruxelles tél: (+ 32 2) fax: (+ 32 2) Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union PR(04)174F1 Brussels, 8 December 2004 P(04)353F1 English original THE MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL COSTS OF ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL Conference organised by the Dutch Presidency Brussels, December 2004 * * * COPA COGECA S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE

2 2 THE MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL COSTS OF ANIMAL DISEASE CONTROL BACKGROUND In 1992, the ban on prophylactic vaccination was introduced for some livestock epidemics, such as epidemics of classical swine fever (CFS) and foot and mouth disease (FMD), The eradication policy was applied. In order to cover the costs related to this policy, Commission created an EU Veterinary Fund, which provided for compensation, up to 60%, towards the costs of animals destroyed. Moreover, currently all Common Market Organisation applicable to the meat sectors foresees exceptional measures to support the market in case of economical losses as a consequence of the restrictions on free circulation imposed as a measure to prevent the spread of animal disease. These measures are funded 100% by Community funds via the EAGGF Guarantee. (NB. In a proposal dated 26 October 2004 com04_712e.pdf the Commission wants these measures to be co-financed at 50% by the Member States) In 2003 the EU has adopted a revised legislation on the control of foot-and-mouth. Although there is no departure from the ban on prophylactic vaccination introduced in 1992, the emphasis on various control measures is shifted by moving emergency vaccination further to the forefront of the control strategies. The directive allows the EU Member States to apply: stamping out without any vaccination; suppressive emergency vaccination which is to be carried out in the frame of a stamping-out/eradication policy. Here the reason for vaccinated animals is that the slaughtering capacity doesn't allow to handle the required number of slaughtering given the circumstances. The vaccinated animals are eventually killed also (culled). protective emergency vaccination which is to be carried out in the frame of a stamping-out/eradication policy with the aim not to destroy the vaccinated animals. In all cases there exists an OIE minimum period for regaining infection and disease free status, which was not the case for emergency protective vaccination until may OIE introduced this title in addition to the free of disease to cater for situations in which vaccination was applied. 1. RISK REDUCTION - PREVENTION Prevention and good bio-security are the key words here. Risk reduction is believed to be an important tool in the battle against all veterinary disease. All production of agricultural goods must be based on sustainable and safe methods and practices in line with the defence of the European model of agriculture. Risk reduction has to be achieved at 3 levels, international, national and on farm level.

3 3 1. INTERNATIONAL The global animal disease situation calls for permanent disease awareness. Preventive measures are necessary to avoid the incursion of animal disease virus onto Community territory and into Community livestock herds from (adjacent) countries or through imports of live animals or products of animal origin. This is even more important in a situation where EU Commission urges further opening of global markets. In this context, more/better inspections and border/import controls, better information on outbreaks in other parts of the world and greater enforcement of existing rules are needed. Imports of livestock products and live animals must be carefully monitored and restricted when necessary. Special attention must be given to secure border/import controls in our new enlarged EU. 2. NATIONAL Effective surveillance of movement of animals is needed on the basis of risk assessment together with improved livestock identification systems. This must be combined with integrated access to detailed information about farm location and geographical boundaries. The ability to accurately predict the spread of disease requires immediate access to both types of information. Continuous updating of contingency plans of the different Member States is considered essential as well as a regular monitoring of the risk reduction policy. 3. FARM Biosecurity has played a significant role in the containment and elimination of outbreaks. Routine management practices should now be examined in the context of this information, whilst bearing in mind that the exact nature of such measures might vary from disease to disease. The farmer should pay special attention to all live animals entering his farm. The farm-to-farm movements of animals, vehicles and people are all factors contributing to the spread of diseases and must therefore be examined on a case by case basis. Good hygiene rules and proper disinfecting are necessary as well as codes of good practice at farm level to take into account both animal and public health aspects. 2. NEW RULES NEW MARKETING ISSUES The revised FMD legislation, which suggests a shift towards the use of more emergency protective vaccination, has led COPA-COGECA to reflect thoroughly on how the clients of the meat and dairy industries will react to the use of vaccination. And finally how will the consumer react. In order to get an answer COPA-COGECA s working group on Veterinary questions via a specialised ad hoc group has been reflecting, along with other partners of the food chain. In short, at this stage there is no guarantee that the final consumer will want to buy products from vaccinated animals, although the citizen would favour protective emergency vaccination.

4 4 This uncertain situation leads to the crucial question of financing of losses due to the EU policy. 3. NEW POLICY NEW FINANCIAL RESOURCES? COPA-COGECA note that the general tendency would be to give up totally the idea of an EU Veterinary fund and find other means and resources, argument being that the current Fund is not responding in terms of budget and remit, to the expectations for which it was set up. The creation of a alternative risk financing instruments In its study carried out to launch the debate on the financing of animal disease, the Institute for Risk Management in Agriculture (IRMA), based at the University of Wageningen evaluated and further developed alternative risk financing instruments considering direct losses and consequential epidemic livestock loses (list-a diseases). The proposed schemes fulfil as much as possible the following requirements; No disturbance of markets; Compatible with International agreements (Canada and USA offer examples) Run by the private market, without EU participation and Applicable to the whole of the EU. The study suggest that risk financing of epidemic livestock diseases could be based - as an alternative to the current funding procedures - on either a levy system or an insurance system. Both systems however applying the principle of a payment by the primary producer, ie the farmer. COPA-COGECA cannot accept this perspective. There are no objective reasons to put extensive financial burden on individual livestock farmers by making them pay for disease outbreaks such as FMD which are beyond their control and are largely dependent on the effectiveness of the public authorities response in tackling disease outbreak through emergency contingency plans. For diseases like Avian Influenza, Rift Valley Fever and other (emerging) zoonoses, often found in pet and wild animals, it is clear that the public sector primarily holds responsibility The long-standing principle is that control disease measures are decided by public authorities, applying EU legislation and thus require public funding. The adaptation of the current EU Fund Considering all the above, for COPA-COGECA, EU co-financing of losses incurred by farmers because of the current EU stamping out-eradication policy must remain in place. This is paramount.

5 5 The argument behind our position is simple and is a continuation of what was argued in the paragraphs above: agriculture as a whole deals with elements which are so basic to human existence, COPA-COGECA consider that it should be largely accepted that there must always be greater government intervention and support than in other sectors. Moreover, as it is farmer s responsibility to ensure all the food they produce is safe and produced according to acceptable criteria of sustainability, it the public authority s responsibility to ensure that the products who respect EU legislation - are marketable. Some improvements could however be considered in regard of : The functioning of the Fund by widening it s scope to include not only direct losses but also some consequential losses. This could cover the possible losses incurred by farmers with vaccinated animals but who do not find a market for their products. The resources of the Fund should be adapted so as to ensure its financing. CONCLUSION COPA-COGECA: Give preference to prevention as most efficient instrument to combat all veterinary diseases. In connection herewith, special attention should be paid to border inspections (airports, customs controls,...) and import controls. Totally reject any attempt to abolish the existence of an EU Veterinary Fund. Animal health and feed safety are more than ever EU policies with common standards and rules. This common EU policy needs a EU fund to operate it! Suggest to consider the best ways to redefine the current EU Fund s objectives and resources. Consider that any risk financing instrument to be created should be done at EU level. High degree of harmonisation must be required in any event, not only to avoid distortion of competition between farmers within the EU but also to consolidate the high health standard level of the EU. In any case, any new risk financing instruments must be seen as complementary to an EU Veterinary Fund and not as an alternative.