Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.15.3-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Members for their kind words and support. In light of the challenges we are facing, the support of Parliament has been a great encouragement and a great help.
On the topic of vaccines and anti-virals, it is indeed true that there are concerns. Not all Member States have reached the same level of preparedness. The industry is not, at this point, in a position to supply the quantities required by the Member States and by the rest of the world. That is why I have been having meetings with the industry and I will report to the Council on 9 December and see how we can improve and enhance the production capacity.
I now turn to the issue of the low pathogenic form. As mentioned earlier, I know there are some views – I see Mr Parish is smiling – that would also support a stamping-out policy for the low pathogenic form. The Commission takes a different approach. The legislation does not encourage it, this is true, but does not prohibit it either. It therefore gives the Member Stats the option to apply it if they feel that this is the appropriate policy for that specific area, for their own region. We have taken into account the advice of EFSA and ethical concerns as regards mass culls. This is the reason why we reached such a conclusion.
Finally, I would like to say that we take into account the issues of animal welfare and the breeding aspects of animals and birds. You will see this in our animal welfare strategy which will be adopted soon – by the end of the year, hopefully, or early next year. I have to point out, however, that the disease has spread to farms in south-east Asia where animals are bred in a natural way. This has not protected them from the virus.
I would like to conclude by stressing the unpredictable nature of the virus, which behaves in strange ways. This is why the greatest emphasis is to be placed on research, so as to enable us to gather as much information as possible.
I should like to thank Members for this interesting debate.
I would like to touch on a few issues. Firstly, with regard to the issue of research, we are already carrying out and financing research. There is, however, still a lot to be done and that is why my colleague, Mr Potočnik, will soon ask for proposals for further research into the vaccine. We are currently doing this and I agree with Members that we have to develop a better vaccine, which is easier to use, more effective and does not hide the disease and infection.
At the same time, there is still much to be learned about the involvement and effect of migratory and other wild birds in spreading the disease. We have to work on the assumption – as this is what the evidence shows, contrary to what we thought in the past – that the disease is spread by migratory birds. However, it also exists in other species such as sparrows and pigeons in south-east Asia. There is still therefore a lot to be learned.
With regard to surveillance, we are using hunters and have asked other groups to also support us in this effort. In addition, we need to know a lot about the virus itself. We therefore not only finance the surveillance programmes and the study of wild and migratory birds, but we will also support the actual research into the virus itself and how it behaves – it is a tricky virus and it changes continuously. Thankfully it has not mutated into a human strain yet, but it behaves in a different way in different birds in different regions. Acquiring as much information as soon as possible is therefore very important.
On the issue of vaccination, it is correct that the new legislation changes the approach. We do not discourage vaccination. It can be used if certain precautions are taken. These precautions are necessary as mistakes could lead to serious consequences. Without such precautious, the worst case would be that the vaccine would hide the infection and allow the disease to spread despite the birds having been vaccinated.
We have had support in the past with Italy. We supported a project and gained important experience, especially with a system that allows vaccinated birds to be distinguished from infected birds.
There is flexibility in this legislation. It takes into account the current limits of the vaccination. The file has to be properly applied and monitored. This is very important. Nevertheless, we will support research in this field so as to have a more effective and easy-to-use vaccine.
On the issue of the plans, I will not say much about the human health aspects, because we discussed this at length a few weeks ago. I can, however, confirm that all Member States have national plans. Only two days ago we adopted both a Community plan for dealing with a pandemic of influenza and a more generic plan. At the same time, this exercise has proved that there is inter-operability between the plans; we do not have 25 or 27 separate actions. We have synergies and coordination.
There is clearly always room for improvement. This is why we had the exercise: to identify the weaknesses. The systems worked and that is good. The exchange of information and the communication also worked. In addition, the early warning response system of the Community worked very well."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples