Fees - Dutch Meat Importers Association

Working paper
Summary of the comments received on the consultation paper on fees Beware: this document was drafted in order to provide an easy to read
summary of the comments received on the consultation paper on fees. Only
the letters received and published on the SANCO website represent the
official views of the persons/authorities that sent comments to the
Commission.
| |
| | |
|EFSA |Position |
| |The Management Board stresses that in its view, it is the |
|EFSA |decision-making bodies (Commission, EP and MS) which will |
|European Food |ultimately construct the financial system allowing EFSA to |
|Safety Authority|function. The source of the funding may not be an issue provided |
| |that the following conditions, particularly in relation to the |
| |independence and accountability of EFSA, are covered by the |
| |legislators: |
| | |
| |- EFSA needs to be adequately funded |
| |EFSA notes that the introduction of fees would introduce an |
| |element of uncertainty to resource allocation and planning (the |
| |amount of fees depends on the number of dossiers submitted). It |
| |is therefore not clear whether charging a fee would indeed help |
| |the overall EFSA budget. |
| | |
| |- The introduction of fees should not result in a skewing of |
| |EFSA's priorities themselves. EFSA has to be able to play its |
| |part in building confidence in the European food supply and the |
| |system that underpins EU food and feed law. This includes working|
| |in those areas that would not attract fees. |
| | |
| |- The introduction of a fee charging system should not result in|
| |any real or perceived threat to EFSA's independent status. |
| | |
| |-If a fee system is introduced it must not be cumbersome, complex|
| |or expensive to run. |
| |Only certain areas of EFSA's work would potentially attract a fee|
| |and it would be necessary to put in place within EFSA specific |
| |procedures and management systems to establish and manage the |
| |fees which would be in addition to the infrastructure currently |
| |in place to manage the rest of EFSA's work. |
| | |
| |- The fee system should be harmonised in order not to result in |
| |different charging structures |
| |EFSA's Management Board also stresses that thought should be |
| |given to whether the time is right to introduce a fee system |
| |while EFSA is still establishing its reputation and working |
| |practices. |
| | |
| |Finally the Board proposes a new approach that would remove any |
| |direct relationship between EFSA and industry and would avoid |
| |calling into question EFSA's independence, even if fees were to |
| |be introduced. It suggests that the Commission itself could |
| |collect the fee and apportion this accordingly with part of the |
| |fee being used to fund enabling activities such as risk |
| |assessments by EFSA. The EFSA comments do not specifically |
| |address the issue of who should pay fees, but it can be noted |
| |that EFSA's comments mention that, in the EU, fees are seen as |
| |legally justifiable for the authorization of products or |
| |substances that may bring direct profit to individual natural or |
| |legal persons (in practice, firms applying for marketing |
| |authorizations for products or substances) |
| | |
|Feed Additives |Position |
| | |
|EMFEMA |EMFEMA objects to the proposal to levy fees for any applicant |
|International |presenting a dossier for authorisation, renewal of authorisation |
|Association of |and re-evaluation of substances in the area of feed additives |
|the European |(Reg.1829/2003 and Dir.82/471). |
|Manufacturers of|Most of the feed additives are generic and therefore the |
|Major, Trace and|applicant would have to pay a fee which his competitors would not|
|Specific Feed |have to pay |
|Mineral |It would discourage producers from seeking authorisations in the |
|Materials |EU market and there would be a risk of orphan additives. |
| |The major objective of the creation of EFSA was to restore |
| |confidence in the independence of scientific advice and |
| |establishing fees is not a suitable way to achieve this. |
| | |
|FEDIAF |FEDIAF is opposed to a proposal which would levy fees on |
|European Pet |applicants presenting dossiers for authorisation of substances |
|Food Industry |under Reg. 1831/2002 or Dir. 82/471 because: |
| |- EFSA fulfils a public duty and should not be paid by the |
| |private sector. A fee system could re-open the debate on EFSA's |
| |independence; |
| |- EFSA should remain focussed on scientific advice and not become|
| |involved in red tape; |
| |- in an area of generic authorisations, the charging of fees is |
| |unfair (all operators benefit); |
| |- feed additives are more viable for agricultural applications |
| |than for pet animal nutrition. Increased costs generated by fees |
| |could lead to a reduction of applications for pet food use; |
| |- a nominal fee would be simple but unfair and a proportionate |
| |fee would generate too much red tape. |
| |- fees could generate a series of problems: who pays fees in case|
| |of several applications for the same substance; prioritisation of|
| |applications; fluctuation of income for EFSA. |
| |Instead of establishing fees, it would be more rational to |
| |simplify the authorisation systems (easier workload for EFSA and |
| |more possibilities for operators to present dossiers). |
| | |
|FEFAC |FEFAC objects to the levying of fees in the area of feed |
|European Feed |additives because a fee structure would discourage innovation and|
|Manufacturers |affect the competitiveness of the EU livestock industry while of |
|Federation |little benefit to the EU budget. |
| |In particular, fees are not appropriate in an area of generic |
| |authorisations. Substances protected either by a patent or a |
| |brand specific approval are the exceptions and the applicant will|
| |have to pay a fee which his competitors will not pay. This is a |
| |disincentive for innovation and could be regarded as |
| |anticompetitive. |
| |The feed additives market is global so that operators might |
| |decide not to seek authorisation on the EU market, while putting |
| |them on the market of third countries. |
| |Applications for minor species would be the most affected. |
| |A low fee could be considered as a solution but this could result|
| |in no benefit for EFSA if the administrative costs are not |
| |covered. |
| |EFSA was created to restore confidence in the independence of the|
| |scientific advice and the establishment of fees is contradictory |
| |to this. |
| |FEFANA is opposed to the proposal that EFSA sho