Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council decision setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution'
C 169/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 6. 1999 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council decision setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution’ (1) (1999/C 169/07) On 9 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 April 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Wilkinson, the co-rapporteurs Mrs zu Eulenburg and Mr Liverani. At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 89 votes in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions. 1. Background 3. General Comments 1. 1. Community action in the field of accidental marine pollution has existed since a 1978 Council Resolution to set up an action programme. The aim of this programme was to support the efforts of Member States to improve their capabili- ties to respond to major pollution incidents at sea. The Committee 3. 1. the proposed Council supports decision as a logical and helpful development of a system that is already in place as a means of better protecting the environment. It is important that work in this area should continue in the longer term. In 1981 a Community Information System was estab- 1. 2. lished. Its purpose was to give Member States the data necessary for dealing with pollution incidents. Its scope was extended in 1986 by including an inventory of resources available. In 1987 a Community Task Force, managed by the 1. 3. Commission, was set up to help any Member State facing a marine pollution incident by the rapid secondment of experts from other Member States. 2. The Commission Proposal 2. 1. The system has shown its value in both minor and major pollution incidents, but there is now a need to consoli- date a simpler and more coherent and transparent framework for cooperation, by bringing the relevant Community Infor- mation Systems and Action Programme together into one act. The framework will provide a sound legal basis, while setting out criteria and financing arrangements for actions taken. 2. 2. The proposal covers information exchange, training, a Community Task Force, international cooperation and pilot technical development projects. The annual budget proposed is 1 million euro, half of which will fund training and exchanges of experts. 3. 2. The Committee notes that the proposals are designed to help in cases of marine pollution from all sources, and whether accidental or deliberate. 3. 3. The Committee also notes that the proposals would be helpful to Member States who are party to other international agreements on marine pollution (2), in force or under nego- tiation. 3. 4. It further notes that agreement on defining who is responsible for causing some types of pollution, to establish liability for paying under the ’polluter pays’ principle, is still under discussion internationally. 4. Specific Comments 4. 1. The proposed budget for the scheme is very modest, bearing in mind what costs may be saved in a single major incident by effective and speedy action. 4. 2. involve Since marine pollution incidents may well third countries, it would seem wise to encourage countries which border a Member State to adopt the EU framework, at least as far as the information system is concerned. 4. 3. For EU candidate countries, especially those which have coastlines, consideration should also be given to funding (1) OJ C 25, 30. 1. 1999, p. 20. (2) Such as the Bonn Agreement (North Sea), Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean) and Helsinki Convention (Baltic). 16. 6. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 169/17 their participation, at a limited level, in the training activities which are planned. This funding could come from the budget proposed in COM(1998) 769 final or from other EU sources. Further, 4. 4. it would be valuable to keep international organizations, such as IMO, informed of progress in the hope that they may use the EU framework as a model internationally. Brussels, 28 April 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 92/117/EEC concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specific zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications’ (1999/C 169/08) On 22 April 1999 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 proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 April 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Leif Nielsen. At its 363rd plenary session (meeting of 28 April 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 93 votes in favour and three abstentions. 1. Introduction accession in 1995. Even though the deadlines were postponed in 1997 by Directive 97/22/EC, a number of Member States have still not submitted their national plans for achieving the objectives of the directive or for implementing its provisions. 1. 1. Council Directive 92/117/EEC obliges the Member States to take certain measures for protection against zoonoses and zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications. The directive provides for a reporting system on the incidence of zoonoses, as well as the monitoring, control and eradication of certain types of salmonella found in poultry breeding flocks. It also introduces control programmes for other zoonotic agents than salmonella. These require the Commission to follow developments and, inter alia, to draw up guidelines for measures to control zoonoses. 1. 3. The Commission is now considering a fundamental change to the policy pursued to date and reflecting on the objectives of future strategy. This involves, inter alia, flexibility on how the objectives are achieved, measures to counter the spread of zoonotic agents through trade, prevention of trade disputes with third countries and development of the ‘stable to table’ principle, including the introduction of codes of good farming practice. Although the directive was adopted unanimously by 1. 2. the Council of Ministers, it soon became clear that not all Member States were able to implement the rules it laid down. It was particularly difficult to carry out the requirement to slaughter or destroy poultry flocks infected with salmonella (S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium). To date, the directive has only been fully implemented in four Member States. Sweden and Finland obtained indefinite trade guarantees upon 1. 4. The Commission was originally supposed to submit a report containing a proposal for a revision of the directive in the light of the experience gained by 1 January 1996. This deadline was extended in 1997, but has now been exceeded by 1` years. The Commission is now complaining that,