Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:31:45.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questions Raised in the Aftermath of the African Swine Fever Outbreak in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Blanca Salas
Blanca Salas*
Affiliation:
FratiniVergano – European Lawyers, Brussels
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 218 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The relevant EU Animal Disease Notification System report is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/adns/adns_outbreaks_per_disease_en.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

2 Borg, Tonio, “European Commission calls once more on the Russian Federation to engage in constructive talks on the issue of the Russian ban on EU pig exports”, 7 February 2014, available on the Internet at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-93_en.htm (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

3 “EU says Russia's blocking of pork imports ‘disproportionate’”, 31 January 2014, available on the Internet at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-eu-russia-pork-idUSBREA0U0YJ20140131 (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

4 Council Directive 2002/60/EC of 27 June 2002 laying down specific provisions for the control of African swine fever and amending Directive 92/119/EEC as regards Teschen disease and African Swine Fever, OJ 2002 L 192/27, as amended.

5 Commission Implementing Decision of 27 January 2014 concerning certain interim protective measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania, OJ 2014 L 26/44; confirmed by Commission Implementing Decision of 14 February 2014 concerning certain protective measures relating to African swine fever in Lithuania, OJ 2014 L 46/20.

6 Commission Implementing Decision of 18 February 2014 concerning certain interim protective measures relating to African swine fever in Poland, OJ 2014 L 50/35, confirmed by Commission Implementing Decision of 12 March 2014 concerning certain protective measures relating to African swine fever in Poland, OJ 2014 L 74/63.

7 The relevant Commission Decisions (supra notes 5 and 6) indicate that the measures specified under Article 15 of Council Directive 2002/60/EC, concerning measures in cases where African swine fever is suspected or confirmed in feral pigs, be applied in the infected areas.

8 According to Commission Decision of 14 February (supra note 5), the infected area in Lithuania encompasses the districts of Trakai and Šalčininkai in county (apskritis) Vilnius and the districts of Lazdijai, Varėna, Alytus, Druskininkai in county Alytus.

9 As per Commission Decision of 12 March (supra note 6), the infected area in Poland includes the following territories: (1) in voivodship podlaskie: the poviat sejneński; in poviat augustowski, the municipalities of Płaska, Lipsk and Sztabin; the poviat sokólski; in poviat białostocki, the municipalities Czarna Białostocka, Supraśl, Zabłudów, Michałowo and Gródek; and the poviats hajnowski, bielski and siemiatycki, (2) in voivodship mazowieckie: the poviat łosicki, (3) in voivodship lubelskie: the poviats bialski, Biała Podlaska and włodawski.

10 Commission Implementing Decision of 27 March 2014 concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States, OJ 2014 L 95/47.

11 “Europe and Customs Union to join forces to fight ASF”, 10 March 2014, available at: http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Industry-Markets/Europe-and-Customs-Union-to-join-forces-to-fight-ASF (last accessed on 27 March 2014).

12 Borg, Tonio, “On-going discussions with Russian Federation on ban of EU pig meat”, 31 January 2014, available on the Internet at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-71_en.htm (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

13 “Lithuania hopes ASF combat will be financed by Brussels”, 7 February 2014, available on the Internet at: http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Industry-Markets/Lithuania-hopes-ASF-combat-will-be-financed-by-Brussels (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

14 WTO doc. WT/DS475/1, 14 April 2014.

15 Victor Saraiva, “Regionalisation as an instrument for preventing the propagation of diseases, including those of camelids” 71st General Session – International Committee of World Organisation for Animal Health. Paris, 18–23 May 2013. Available on the Internet at: http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D666.PDF (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

16 In the field of animal health, ‘regionalisation’ (or ‘zoning’), which is defined on a geographical basis, may adopt the form of ‘compartmentalisation’ (i.e., where holdings are grouped on the basis of common management and husbandry practices).

17 WTO doc. G/SPS/48, 16 May 2008.

18 Chapter 4.3 of the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code concerns “Zoning and compartmentalisation”. Within the framework of the IPPC, a number of ISPMs (i.e., International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) are relevant for ‘regionalisation’, including: ISPM 4 (on requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas); ISPM 10 (on the establishment of pest-free places of production and production sites); ISPM 22 (on requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence); and ISPM 29 (on the recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence).

19 WTO doc. G/SPS/N/RUS/48, 10 February 2014 and WTO doc. G/SPS/N/RUS/48/Add.1, 20 February 2014.

20 WTO doc. G/SPS/N/RUS/49, 4 March 2014.

21 WTO doc. G/SPS/N/UKR/94, 4 March 2014.

22 WTO doc. G/SPS/N/ALB/173, 4 March 2014. Albania's restrictions apply only to the Polish region of Podlaskie.

23 WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/1305, 19 February 2014; and WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/1313, 11 March 2014.

24 WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/1315, 14 March 2014.

25 WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/588, 8 July 2005. References to previous submissions from the EU include WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/101, 23 November 1998 and WTO doc. G/SPS/GEN/461, 12 December 2003.

26 Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ 2000 L 169/1, as amended.

27 Commission Implementing Decision of 11 December 2013 on measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely (all strains pathogenic to Citrus ), as regards South Africa, OJ 2013 L 334/44.

28 The EU's emergency measures (supra note 27) were targeted at citrus fruits produced during the 2012-2013 growing season, which reportedly ended soon after the entry into force of such measures. Nonetheless, similar measures could be re-introduced with regard to following seasons.

29 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), “Scientific Opinion on the risk of Phyllosticta citricarpa (Guignardia citricarpa) for the EU territory with identification and evaluation of risk reduction options”, EFSA Journal (2014). Available on the Internet at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3557.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

30 EFSA's Scientific Opinion (supra note 29) at pp. 135 et seq.

31 According to EFSA, “[t]he effectiveness of restricting the distribution of consignments of fruit potentially infected by P. citricarpa to the non-endangered area of the EU would be high. The technical feasibility is assessed as low because of the difficulties to establish and maintain the required control and monitoring systems, associated with the designation of protected zones with respect to CBS”. EFSA's Scientific Opinion (supra note 29) at pp. 136.

32 European Food Safety Authority, “Evaluation of possible mitigation measures to prevent introduction and spread of African swine fever virus through wild boar”, EFSA Journal (2014). Available on the Internet at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3616.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2014); and “Scientific Opinion on African swine fever”, EFSA Journal (2014). Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3628.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

33 United States Department of Agriculture, November 2013 data.

34 “Polish agriculture minister resigns over swine fever response”, 13 March 2014, available on the Internet at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/poland-minister-agriculture-idUSW8N0LT01X20140313 (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

35 “Russian President called to intervene in EU pork import ban”, 13 February 2014, available on the Internet at: http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Industry-Markets/Russian-President-called-to-intervene-in-EU-pork-import-ban (last accessed on 30 April 2014).