Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

C 123/72 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.4.


3.5.3. In point 9, conditions to the possible use of a marker importance in ensuring that all the relevant authorities have
vaccine are described. The approval of a marker vaccine, the full knowledge of the location and density of pig populations.
international acceptance and the usage of vaccination should
be conditional to the use of vaccination. This is essential in 4.3. The Committee welcomes the proposals for the possi-
relation to EU exports in order to secure that the usage of a bility of the introduction of a marker CSF vaccine in certain
marker vaccine in one region does not jeopardise exports from limited circumstances.
other EU regions.

4.4. The Committee considers it vital that all trade impli-

4. Conclusions cations be clarified first.

4.1. Fair and equitable compensation arrangements for 4.5. The Committee points out that as yet no marker
farmers who have suffered financial loss as a result of disease vaccine has been approved and that no differential test is even
control measures are an essential feature of any disease control in existence. However the making of these rules should act as
scheme. a guide to potential vaccine manufacturers.

4.2. The proper implementation of Directive 92/102/EEC, 4.6. The Standing Veterinary Committee will have to be
in relation to the ‘identification of porcine animals’, is of consulted before vaccination is used.

Brussels, 24 January 2001.

The President
of the Economic and Social Committee

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy as
well as various other Regulations relating to the common agricultural policy’

(2001/C 123/17)

On 12 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 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 20 December 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Strasser.

At its 378th plenary session held on 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 24 January), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction 1.2. The 1977 version has been amended 14 times, as and
when necessary: firstly, in order to reflect institutional changes
(the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, funding for EFTA
countries in the framework of the EEA) and then to ensure
more rigorous management of Community resources.
1.1. On 26 July 2000 the European Commission proposed
a radical revision of the EU Financial Regulation. The main
purpose of the proposal was to simplify and restructure the
existing Financial Regulation, which was introduced over 1.3. The Commission considers that all the principles and
20 years ago. key provisions for budget and financial management should
25.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 123/73

be brought together in a single legal instrument, whereas — financing of the common agricultural policy (2),
detailed and technical provisions should be covered in
implementing regulations. — the additional levy on surplus milk production (3),

— financing of intervention measures in the form of public

1.4. In order to ensure the necessary transparency in storage accounts (4),
budget accounting (1), the draft proposal provides for ‘negative
expenditure’ in the agricultural sector to be treated as earmar- — and crediting of securities, deposits and guarantees furni-
ked revenue in accordance with the rules in effect for this shed under the common agricultural policy and sub-
sector. sequently forfeited (5).

1.5. The term ‘negative expenditure’ is used on the one

hand when referring to recovery of payments already made 2. Comments
and on the other for revenue that could not yet be considered
as revenue in budgetary planning. ‘Negative expenditure’ is the
result of a complicated budgetary mechanism and is divided 2.1. The Committee considers that the Commission’s pro-
into five categories: posal to separate the budgeting and entering of ‘earmarked
revenue’ accords with the budget principle of transparency,
— amounts recovered as a result of fraud or irregularities, and especially also the need to identify the various account
movements in the agricultural budget.
— corrections to advances made on the basis of Article 13
of the rules on budgetary discipline, 2.2. The Committee therefore welcomes the proposal to
— any ‘profits’ which may arise from sales from public transform ‘negative expenditure’ into ‘earmarked revenue’. This
storage, also provides the necessary clarification called for several times
by the European Court of Auditors. This clarification also
— the additional levy on surplus milk production, means that sums converted from ‘negative expenditure’ into
‘earmarked revenue’ are unquestionably available for purposes
— the financial consequences of clearance-of-accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee section. The Committee emphasises
decisions. that this proposed amendment will not place any additional
burden on the Community budget.
1.6. In order to transform ‘negative expenditure’ from
the EAGGF guarantee section into earmarked revenue, the 2.3. The Committee asks the Commission to ensure that its
Commission proposes to define what recoveries, levies and implementing rules contain clear instructions regarding the
sums withheld under the common agricultural policy are to reports to be submitted by the member states.
be considered as earmarked revenue in the following cases:

(1) The European Court of Auditors has lamented the difficulty of ( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
identifying ‘negative expenditure’ in the accounts (see for example ( 3) Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.
its Annual report for the financial year 1998, point 2.39, OJ C ( 4) Regulation (EEC) No 3492/90, OJ L 337, 4.12.1990.
349, 3.12.1999). ( 5) Regulation (EEC) No 352/78, OJ L 50, 22 .2.1978.

Brussels, 24 January 2001.

The President
of the Economic and Social Committee