16 Management of expenditure on agri-food
health measures
| (35037)
10726/13
COM(13) 327
| Draft Regulation laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2009/29/EC and 2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No. 178/2002, (EC) No. 882/2004 and (EC) No. 398/2005, Directive 2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/74/EC
|
| Legal base | Articles 43(2) and 168(4)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 7 June 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 13 June 2013
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 19 June 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
16.1 The current legal framework for funding health measures
relating to the agri-food chain includes Council Decision 2009/470/EC
for veterinary eradication programmes and emergency measures,
Council Directive 2000/29/EC for plant health measures, and Regulation
(EC) No. 882/2004 for official controls, with further specific
provisions in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 on maximum residue
levels for pesticides, Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 on the placing
of plant protection products on the market, Directive 2009/128/EC
on the sustainable use of pesticides, as well as numerous other
Council Directives related to animal and plant health.
The current proposal
16.2 The Commission says that this complex and piecemeal framework
has evolved over time, and needs to be rationalised. It has therefore
put forward, as part of its package of policy measures covering
animal health policy,[45]
plant health,[46] plant
reproductive material[47]
and official food and feed controls,[48]
this draft Regulation which would replace the current financial
provisions by a single, clear and modern framework, and so optimise
the implementation and functioning of expenditure in this area.
16.3 The proposal is due to come into force on
1 January 2014, and would set a maximum ceiling for expenditure
in the period 2014-20 of €1.891 billion, which the Commission
says is in line with the agreement reached by the Council on the
Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). In addition, it would:
- establish objectives (accompanied
by appropriate indicators) for achieving a high level of safety
for food and food production systems, contributing to a higher
animal health status in the EU, supporting animal welfare, contributing
to the timely detection and eradication of pests, and improving
the effective implementation of official controls;
- identify eligible measures and costs;
- set a standard co-financing rate of 50% (which
can be raised to 75% or 100% under certain conditions);[49]
- set a minimum grant of €50,000, in order
to avoid the administrative burden of managing micro-programmes;
- provide for access in emergencies to the Reserve
for crises in the agricultural sector; and
- establish procedures for submitting and evaluating
annual and multiannual control programmes, and for setting or
updating the list of animal diseases or plant pests eligible for
co-funding.
The Government's view
16.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 June
2013, the Minister of State at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (David Heath) says that
the UK, including the devolved
administrations, broadly supports this consolidation of the existing
framework and the focus on value for money, indicators and outcomes.
He adds that there are still some areas under consideration relating
to the timing of the proposals (where the link to the MFF negotiations
may make it challenging for the UK to achieve its domestic requirement
to agree cleared negotiating lines); the detail of the funding,
and in particular the provision for access to the crises fund
to meet the increased needs if there is an animal or plant health
emergency (which the UK cannot support as it would imply an increase
in the funding envelope), and the inclusion of compensation paid
under national plant health schemes (which could be viewed as
encouraging some recipients to take risks which would undermine
the objective).
Conclusion
16.5 The principle of incorporating the existing
diverse set of funding measures in these areas into a single,
modern framework is clearly sensible, and, although we note that
there are one or two detailed points which the Government is still
pursuing, we do not think these are of sufficient significance
to call into question the underlying aim of the proposal. We are
therefore content to clear it.
45 (34913) 9468/13: see HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter
2 (10 July 2013). Back
46
(34934) 9574/13: see HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter 4 (10 July 2013). Back
47
(34930) 9527/13: see HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter 3 (10 July 2013). Back
48
(34922) 9464/13: see HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter 6 (10 July 2013). Back
49
For example, measures in Member States with a low per capita gross
national income, or where the EU faces a serious health risk. Back
|
