EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2014) /07/2014 EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANCO) MR FINAL FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN POLAND FROM 24 TO 28 FEBRUARY 2014 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE USE OF THE TRACES SYSTEM In response to information provided by the Competent Authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of an audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in Poland from 24 to 28 February The overall objective of the audit was to evaluate the completeness and correctness of the use of TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System) by the competent authorities and the use of TRACES for verification of controls purposes. Poland has designated a competent authority for use of TRACES in relation to products of animal origin and live animals. Other competent authorities use TRACES for non-animal origin products for training purposes. In general staff at border inspection posts (BIPs) and local veterinary units (LVUs) are qualified and experienced in relation to TRACES activities and use TRACES correctly, with two exceptions: a) the controls of live animals arriving at abattoirs and animals exported to third countries transiting through other Member States, and b) the follow-up of specific consignments (e.g. animal by-products for intra-eu trade, consignments re-imported, sent for destruction, quarantine or approved bodies). In some areas the lack of sufficiently detailed documented procedures (instructions) in both BIPs and LVUs reduces the performance of the use of TRACES on these issues, therefore the relevant official controls are either not recorded or recorded incorrectly in TRACES, contrary to the legal requirements. The systematic approach to assess the use of TRACES in BIPs is developed, however the system of verification does not sufficiently cover the use of TRACES at LVUs level, where the verification system does not ensure that deficiencies are detected and corrective actions are implemented when required. This report includes a number of recommendations addressed to the competent authority, aimed at rectifying the shortcomings and further enhancing the value of TRACES.

3 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES LEGAL BASIS BACKGROUND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS COMPETENT AUTHORITIES RESOURCES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROLS USE OF TRACES MANAGEMENT OF USERS AND ORGANISATIONS USE FOR PRE-NOTIFICATION (INCLUDES CLONING OF IMPORT) USE FOR NON-CONFORMING GOODS USE FOR VETERINARY CHECKS - HELP TO DECISION TAB REC REGIME FOR IMPORTS OF PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN AND RASFF USE FOR FOLLOW-UP OF CONSIGNMENTS (RE-IMPORTS, CHANNELLING, DESTRUCTION, TRANSITS...) ANIMAL WELFARE CHECKS SIGNATURES INTRA MODULE DOCOM MODULE CEDS AND CHED-PPS MODULES EXPORT MODULE VERIFICATION AND REVIEW OVERALL CONCLUSIONS CLOSING MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS...12 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES...14 ANNEX 2 - SUMMARY OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS...17

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation BIP CED CHED-PP CVED CVEDA CVEDP Data warehouse DOCOM DPE EXPORT FVO GVI INTRA-CERT LVU QlikView RASFF SLVU SPHSIS SSI TRACES Explanation Border inspection post Common entry document Common health entry document for plants and plant products Common veterinary entry document Common veterinary entry document for animals Common veterinary entry document for products One of the features of TRACES allowing monitoring of data Commercial document created in TRACES by economic operators Designated point of entry Official certificate created in TRACES by competent authorities in Member States for export to non-eu countries Food and Veterinary Office General Veterinary Inspectorate Intra-trade animal health certificate Local veterinary unit One of the features of TRACES allowing monitoring of data Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed Super local veterinary unit State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service State Sanitary Inspection Trade control and expert system

5 1 INTRODUCTION This audit took place in Poland from 24 to 28 February 2014 as part of the Food and Veterinary Office's audit programme. The audit team comprised of two auditors. The FVO audit team was accompanied throughout the audit by representatives from the central competent authority the General Veterinary Inspectorate (GVI) within the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. In particular, representatives of the GVI Border Office and the Animal Health and Welfare Office accompanied the audit team during the visits to border inspection posts (BIPs) and local veterinary units (LVUs). An opening meeting was held on 24 February 2014 with representatives from the GVI, Customs under the Ministry of Finance, the State Sanitary Inspection and the regional (Voivodship) veterinary inspectorate of Lublin. At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for the audit were confirmed. Additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was provided by the different competent authorities. 2 OBJECTIVES The objective of the audit was to evaluate the completeness and correctness of the use of TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System) by the competent authorities, and the use of TRACES for the verification of control purposes. This included, amongst other points, the procedures and communication mechanisms in place, guidance and training of staff using TRACES to support its correct use and the existence and effectiveness of verification mechanisms. Regarding the scope, the audit covered the use of TRACES in relation to: all products of animal origin, live animals and products of non-animal origin, imports, exports and intra-eu trade, all user-levels for TRACES within the competent authorities - central level, regional offices, BIPs, LVUs and super local veterinary units (SLVUs). The use of TRACES by private operators and authorities in third countries was excluded from the scope of this audit. The table below lists the sites visited and the meetings held in order to achieve the above objective: Location Competent authority Comments Headquarters BIPs General Veterinary Inspectorate (Warsaw) Warszawa Okęcie (airport) and Kukuryki-Koroszczyn (road) Opening and closing meetings, imports and intra-eu trade. Use of TRACES (CVEDs) LVUs Lubartów and Parczew Use of TRACES (Intra-EU trade, exports and CVEDs) 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation and, in particular Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 1

6 Annex 1 comprises a list of legislation as audit criteria for this report. Legal acts quoted in this report refer, where applicable, to the last amended version. 4 BACKGROUND TRACES is an integrated web-based system, maintained by the European Commission 'Health and Consumers Directorate General', which notifies, certifies and monitors imports, transits, exports and intra-eu trade in animals and animal products. Economic operators (private sector) and competent authorities all over the world can use this web-based network to trace back and forth animal and animal product movements. All the information contained in the common veterinary entry documents (CVEDs) provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (Common veterinary entry documents for products of animal origin, CVEDPs), in Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 (Common veterinary entry documents for live animals, CVEDAs) and in the certificates for intra-union trade (INTRA- CERTS) as harmonised by Commission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 must be entered into TRACES by Member States. This requirement was fully applicable as from 1 January 2006 through Commission Decision 2004/292/EC. During 2013, the 12 BIPs issued 1,019 CVEDAs and 7,733 CVEDPs. There are two warehouses approved under Article 12 of Council Directive 97/78/EC for the temporary storage of products of animal origin which do not comply with the EU public health requirements 1. They are under the responsibility of two local veterinary units (LVU). There are no warehouses approved under Article 13 of Directive 97/78/EC for the temporary storage of products of animal origin destined for supply of ships. The 305 LVUs issued 8,180 INTRA-CERTS for live animals and 1,069 for products of animal origin, and received 39,542 INTRA-CERTS during FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Legal Requirements Commission Decision 92/486/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. Findings 1. The GVI has been designated as the competent authority responsible for coordinating the use of TRACES in relation to products of animals origin and live animals, in line with the requirement of Article 1 of Decision 92/486/EEC. It is also responsible for use of TRACES in relation of feedingstuffs of non-animal origin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. The GVI staff coordinate TRACES-related issues with regional authorities and BIPs, and the regional authorities provide the information to local veterinary units. 1 In its response to the draft report the competent authority noted that two customs warehouses for storage of nonconforming products of animal origin currently operating in Poland, however there is the third customs warehouse (under supervision of district veterinary office of Gdynia) which is temporary suspended. 2

7 2. The State Sanitary Inspection (SSI) and the State Plant Health and Seeds Inspection Service (SPHSIS) are the competent authorities to use TRACES for Common entry documents (CED) for foodstuffs of non-animal origin and Common health entry document for plant and plant products (CHED-PP). SSI and SPHSIS use TRACES for training purposes on the basis of pilot projects due to the absence of legal obligations. 3. Customs coordinate the single window project planning the interface with the TRACES system and the use of it in all customs offices. GVI Border office is in charge of cooperation with customs, especially to adapt the exchange of information between GVI and customs in real time, analysis of use CVEDPs and CVEDAs, CEDs, testing access of BIP staff to documents after customs control. The implementation of a single window project is planned in the middle of Currently an interface between customs and BIPs information systems has been developed at individual border control posts level. Conclusion on competent authorities 4. The GVI is the designated competent authority for use of TRACES in relation to imports and INTRA trade of products of animal origin and live animals, as well as imports of feedingstuffs of non-animal origin. Within the GVI, responsibilities are allocated to various offices are clear and ensure coordination. In relation to the use of CED and CHED-PP, the use of TRACES is at the very early stage therefore coordination and cooperation could not be evaluated. 5.2 RESOURCES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROLS Legal Requirements Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. Findings 5. Official veterinarians are the registered users of TRACES in LVUs and BIPs. At BIPs and LVUs visited, there was a sufficient number of TRACES users ensuring that all data was entered into the TRACES system in time. Appropriate facilities, equipment and internet connection were available at all locations visited during the audit. 6. Instructions provide relevant guidance and clarification on the use of TRACES. The updated information is provided to users by and, in addition, is published on the official webpage of the central competent authority. 7. In one BIP visited where imported live animals were sent to approved bodies, the confirmation from the place of destination was not received and consignments were not followed-up by BIP staff contrary to the requirements of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. Staff were not aware of this requirement and the instructions do not contain information about it. 8. The central TRACES co-ordinator ( Helpdesk ) has the technical knowledge on TRACES issues and provides technical guidance, but specific instructions (e.g. use of RASFF module, imports) are consulted and agreed with the GVI office in charge of specific areas of thecontrols. 9. The regional coordinators have a technical knowledge on the creation of the management of 3

8 organisations in TRACES (e.g. economic operators). 10. The LVUs and BIPs receive a number of notifications from TRACES which are not related to their work, because users profiles are not adapted to the practical needs of staff. The officials interviewed in LVU were aware of the tool in TRACES to manage notifications (i.e., to limit notifications received to the ones relevant for their individual tasks), however this feature had not been used. 11. In relation to the Help to Decision tab in the CVED module, BIPs staff showed a good knowledge of the TRACES features for imposed re-enforced checks and similar rejected consignments in order to inform and correctly apply the EU legislation when making decisions on consignments. 12. GVI provided a number of training courses, as required by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, relating specifically to the use of TRACES or including it as a part of training themes. Staff also obtain on-the-job training and practice. The training courses were provided to regional services, LVUs and BIPs staff. Evaluation of the training material on control of animal by-products showed that training was sufficient and clear, however training was not effective because it had not improved the awareness of staff on the control of animal by-products at the place of destination and TRACES was not correctly used for those purposes. 13. There is an approved contingency plan, as required by Article 4.2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, providing a detailed procedure on communication between authorities in case TRACES is not available for more than 24 hours. The contingency plan requires that relevant documents would be issued in hard copy and information provided directly to the competent authority of the place of destination or to appointed contact persons responsible for the communication. The information would be recorded into TRACES as soon as the system became available again. Conclusion on the resources for the performance 14. The competent authority has suitably qualified and experienced staff, facilities and equipment relating to TRACES activities. Different users of TRACES received appropriate training enabling the correct use of TRACES. In some areas where instructions were not sufficiently detailed for both BIPs and LVUs, the relevant official controls are either not recorded or recorded incorrectly in TRACES. 5.3 USE OF TRACES Legal Requirements Decision 2004/292/EC, Commission Decision 2000/571/EC, Regulation (EC) No 136/2004, Regulation (EC) No 282/2004, Regulation (EC) No 599/2004, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Decision 93/444/EC, Directive 97/78/EC, Council Directive 2002/99/EC and Council Directive 90/425/EEC. 4

9 Findings Management of users and organisations Competent authority user accounts 15. The GVI has designated a national TRACES administrator, who supplies access to other representatives within GVI and in BIPs. Some of representatives of GVI have access to TRACES, however TRACES is used mainly only by Border Office of GVI and occasionally by other representatives of GVI Regional TRACES administrators, located in regional veterinary inspectorates, are responsible for technical issues such as creating the new economic operators, registering the new users of LVUs and making a statistical overview of the information in TRACES, but it is not responsible for the verification of the information provided in TRACES by LVUs (finding 59). 17. BIPs directly contact the national TRACES administrator to obtain new TRACES accounts or with other technical questions which arise during work. Staff at the BIPs informed that communication with the national TRACES administrator is mainly done by phone. 18. Users at BIPs and LVUs are connected to the TRACES system as individual BIP or LVU users. There is also a collective user account. Some shortcomings in relation to the use of both types of user accounts were noted during the audit (finding 42). Individual officials receive all notifications received by BIP or LVU respectively Private user accounts: economic operators, private veterinarians 19. For creating organisations, the officials at LVUs and BIPs did not follow the instructions laid down in the User Manual V5 of TRACES, They did not verify that the economic operator was not already present in the TRACES database, registered by the competent authority of country of origin. This results those economic operators being listed several times on the system and it overloads the TRACES database and undermines the quality of statistical data in TRACES. 20. For the movement of live animals to other Member States, no economic operators have been provided with access to TRACES in relation to the completion of part 1 of INTRA-CERT. 21. GVI stated that there are approx. 40 economic operators, which are using accounts in the TRACES system in order to issue DOCOMs. Those economic operators were connected to the TRACES system by regional TRACES co-ordinators. 22. Private veterinarians are not registered as users Use for pre-notification (includes cloning of IMPORT) 23. The majority of consignments at airport and port BIPs are pre-notified in electronic format 2 In its response to the draft report the competent authority noted that staff of Animal Health and Protection Office (Biuro Zdrowia i Ochrony Zwierząt) within GVI also have access to TRACES. They use this access mostly to analyse irregularities in the trade and export of live animals reported by the Polish LVUs and other EU Member States. The staff responsible for these areas regularly use TRACES to verify that the data contained in the original health certificate used when transporting animals match the data entered in TRACES. In addition, they use TRACES to trace animal transports in the event of an epizootic disease sent from Poland to other EU Member States or from other Member States to Poland. 5

10 using TRACES by presenting part I of the CVED as required by Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 282/ In the road BIP visited, the majority of consignments were pre-notified to the BIP using a hard copy of part I of CVED, therefore BIP staff enter information of CVED into TRACES by themselves. After border control, the CVED was printed from the TRACES system and given to the driver. 25. The cloning of IMPORT electronic certificates is used. Approximately 72 percent of issued electronic certificates were cloned. Morocco, Mauritius and Ecuador are the main countries which issue the electronic certificates for products imported into Poland. Using the cloning possibility reduces the administrative burden to BIP staff and reduces the possibility of typographical errors Use for non-conforming goods Transits and warehouses 26. There are two customs warehouses in Poland which are approved under the Article 12(4) of Directive 97/78/EC 3, and store very small amounts of consignments of non-conforming goods. Both customs warehouses are under the responsibility of LVUs -Gdynia (TRACES code PL22620) and Sokólka (TRACES code PL20110)-, therefore the GVI granted super local veterinary unit (SLVU) status to those LVUs, so they can issue CVEDs for split consignments. However those SLVUs use collective accounts and therefore officials' names were not recorded individually when they issued CVEDs for consignments split at the warehouses (finding 42). Even though the hard copy of the certificates complies with with the General principles of certification laid down in paragraph 1 of Annex IV of Directive 2002/99/EC, the information in TRACES does not reflect the hard copy and the requirements of Annex III (box 40) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 are not complied with. 27. In one of the two customs warehouses, where non-conforming consignments were split, the officials were not following the instructions in User Manual V5, 5.6 and did not use the split function in TRACES to generate the subsequent CVED to the original CVE D. This means that subsequent CVEDs did not include in box 24 the cross-reference number required by Article 1(6) of Decision 2000/571/EC, the traceability of the consignments in TRACES was lost and statistical data was distorted. 28. Several consignments were sent to customs warehouses located in other Member States, but confirmation of arrival in TRACES was not received from the competent authorities at destination, what is not in line with the requirements of Article 2 of Decision 2000/571/EC. However, the BIP staff contacted the Polish customs authorities, who confirmed that consignments had arrived to the place of destination. The data in TRACES were never confirmed and there is no evidence that the consignment was controlled at the warehouse by the veterinary authorities of destination. The lack of feedback from destination is not notified by the BIP to the GVI, since instructions do not foresee follow-up of nonconforming goods transported to the customs warehouses, free warehouses or free zones. 3 In its response to the draft report the competent authority noted that two customs warehouses for storage of nonconforming products of animal origin currently operating in Poland, however there is the third customs warehouse (under supervision of district veterinary office of Gdynia) which is temporary suspended. 6

11 Transhipment/Transfer from BIP/DPE/DPI to BIP/CP and Transhipment to a non-eu country 29. Poland receives consignments which have been already transhipped by other BIPs of the EU. Therefore, the use of the transhipment module is limited to the use at the final BIP for the official controls. The BIP visited did not have transhipment activity, so the transhipment module was not used Use for veterinary checks - help to decision tab Documentary and identity checks 30. Staff at the BIPs use tools from TRACES (finding 11), to take correct decision, required by Article 4 of Directive 97/78/EC. 31. Part II of CVEDAs for horses re-entering the EU after participating in sport events showed repeated errors. Those horses were indicated for quarantine which is not in line with the requirements of box 35 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004. This incorrect decision recorded in TRACES led to an unnecessary follow-up which was not done. In addition, BIPs created the new economic operators without consulting the list of economic operators which are provided in TRACES (finding 19) Physical checks, including laboratory results 32. The physical checks reflected in box 28 of the CVEDs were correctly recorded. The laboratory tests were included as required, in box 29, and the results of the random monitoring were also included in the CVEDs reviewed. 33. One BIP visited stated that it does not use the reduced frequency checks calculation tab in the Help to Decision tool but for the implementation of the requirements of Article 4 of Decision 94/360/EC, they used the table created locally for the calculation of reduced frequency REC regime for imports of products of animal origin and RASFF 34. The Chief Veterinary Officer issued an instruction on 19 January 2012 covering the scope and method of the functioning of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). It requires the veterinary inspector of the BIP to use TRACES for triggering of RASFF notification. 35. Several examples of RASFF alerts notified from BIP checks were evaluated. The information has been correctly recorded in TRACES. 36. The re-enforced checks regime (REC) tab was used correctly, showing that the controls were implemented in line with Article 24 of Directive 97/78/EC. 7

12 5.3.6 Use for follow-up of consignments (re-imports, channelling, destruction, transits...) At the point of introduction 37. The GVI developed the system to follow-up re-imported and channelled consignments. Following a letter from Chief Veterinary Officer of 20 January 2013, the BIP of entry has to follow-up the channelled consignments and put all possible efforts to get confirmation of arrival at the place of destination using TRACES. The confirmation was recorded in TRACES for approximately 79 percent of consignments. Even though it is not directly under the scope of this audit, it is noted as a very good practice that, if the confirmation is not received by the BIP of entry, then the BIP of entry provides information to the GVI who contacts the competent authority at the place of destination (e.g. during meetings of delegates of the Standing Committee on the food chain and animal health and a letter to individual Member State). 38. For consignments re-imported, sent for destruction, transiting and others which need to be followed-up, the BIP of entry follows-up those consignments by contacting the customs services in writing. Customs provide confirmation in writing that the consignments in question arrived to the place of destination. Therefore such consignments were regarded as followed- up although confirmation was not recorded in TRACES. 39. One BIP visited received consignments of live animals destined for approved bodies in accordance with the national legislation, after the GVI issued an import licence for certain animals. CVEDAs issued were entered into TRACES, but part 3 (Control) of the CVEDA was never completed by an official veterinarian responsible for supervision of the controlled destination contrary to requirement laid down in Part 3 of Annex 1 of Regulation (EC) No 282/ At destination 40. LVUs controlling the economic operator at the place of destination do not ensure that the outcome of control on the arriving consignment is correctly recorded in TRACES (this recording is required by Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 282/2004). This requires additional follow-up efforts from the BIPs staff. The low level of confirmation of receipt at the place of destination (e.g. re-imported, sent for destruction, approved bodies) in Traces indicates that LVUs have a low level of controls to follow-up consignments at the place of destination Animal welfare checks 41. The records in TRACES for a number of consignments of live animals indicated that the welfare check was carried out and the outcome was satisfactory although the travel time had been exceeded. The competent authority explained, that travel time did not exceed legal limits and that the relevant official had concluded after an examination of the animals that the welfare situation was acceptable and that this should be recorded in order to inform the LVU of origin via TRACES 4. 4 In its response to the draft report the competent authority noted that information that the estimated travel time indicated in point I.29 of the health certificate was indeed exceeded; however, the travel time had been estimated incorrectly. None of the cases involved a breach of the travel time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/

13 5.3.8 Signatures 42. Information in TRACES shows that two different user types are used in BIPs and LVUs. This was confirmed during the audit by the GVI. In many cases veterinary inspectors in BIPs and LVUs are using individual connections to TRACES. However there are BIPs and SLVUs using the collective user account. This means that the documents issued by those BIPs and SLVUs in TRACES do not identify the veterinary inspectors who issued CVEDs. The lack of identification of the signing official is contrary to the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 of Annex IV of Directive 2002/99/EC and Annex III (box 40) of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004. The GVI took immediate actions to rectify the discrepancies in BIPs and SLVUs but there were no actions concerning LVUs INTRA module 43. Movement of live animals to other Member States - The economic operator submits to the LVU a written request (using a template form). The LVU checks the application and prepares the INTRA-CERT in TRACES. The LVU stated that most movements begin at assembly centres, where a computer and internet connection is available and the certificate is printed and issued on site after the physical examination of the animals. If there is no access to a computer at the location, the official prints the certificate at the LVU before travelling to the location and signs it there after examination of the animals. The competent authority stated changes to the paper certificates are seldom necessary following examination of the animals. 44. In relation to exports of live animals to third countries transiting through other Member States, it was noted: that they are accompanied only by the certificate to export to the third country (in Polish and in the third country's language). The relevant instruction Exportation of live animals and animal products to third countries does not require an INTRA-CERT to be issued. Certifying officers entered data related to the consignment into TRACES as soon as possible after the consignment had departed but this could take a few days and the animals may have left the EU by then. Therefore, the requirements of Article 2(1) of Decision 93/444/EEC which requires consignments of live animals to be accompanied by an INTRA-CERT when being the subject of trade are not complied with. the INTRA-CERT did not always contain the list of the individual animal identification numbers, contrary to the requirements of Article 3.1 of Decision 2004/292/EC. In the relevant box, it was cross-referenced to an Annex with this information, but the details were not accessible via TRACES. The relevant instruction was amended as from 14 February 2014 and now requires that the individual identification numbers are included in every certificate. 45. In relation to consignments of live animals arriving from other Member States, it was noted that: according to the competent authority, all incoming TRACES notifications are checked to verify that the details they contain are acceptable, however in order to implment Article 5(a) of Directive 90/425/EC on non-discriminatory checks, 5 percent of consignments of live animals are physically controlled at destination often in the case of suspicion. official controls related to ante-mortem inspections or welfare controls at Control Posts are not routinely recorded in TRACES, contrary to the requirements of Article 3.1 of Decision 2004/292/EC. There are currently no national instructions that require these 9

14 controls to be recorded in TRACES. LVUs inform the designated veterinarians at abattoirs when notifications via TRACES are received and veterinarians inform the LVU when any problems are detected with the consignments and the nature of the problem. The LVU then enters this information into TRACES. The competent authority stated that it was currently revising instructions for this area and that recording data into TRACES would be taken into consideration. 46. In relation to the movement of specific animal by-products, it was noted that: The GVI stated that commercial documents were provided via the INTRA-CERT module of TRACES as required. Neither of the LVUs visited during the audit were responsible for controls on trade that would require issuing documents for the outward movement of such animal by-products to other Member States. There is a national instruction on the requirements of Article 48.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and it was covered in training courses in recent years. However, the GVI did not have an overview to what extent it was being implemented (i.e. the requirement that incoming consignments of certain animal by-products (Categories 1, 2 and processed animal proteins from Category 3) should be controlled and confirmed as having been received at destination in TRACES). The competent authority, on request of the audit team, checked the TRACES database for two separate CN codes. Over two different periods of time, figures of 8 and 29 percent of confirmation of receipt were obtained, despite thorough adequate training having been provided (finding 12) and verification did not cover use of TRACES at LVUs (finding 60). At the two LVUs visited, it was stated that no incoming consignments of animal by-products had been notified in recent years DOCOM module 47. The GVI provided instructions and trainings for regional TRACES coordinators in relation to the registration of commercial operators which may issue DOCOMs in TRACES for the movement of animal-by-products between Member States. 48. Instructions on use of DOCOMs does not contain information on the requirement of followup of consignments of animal by-products received from other Member States contrary to the requirements of Article 48(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/ For some consignments of the animal-by-products, LVUs issue commercial documents using both INTRA-trade certificates and the DOCOM module as required by animal byproducts legislation CEDs and CHED-PPs modules 50. Poland volunteered to participate in the Commission's pilot project and officials are obtaining training via BTSF in order to be able to start using CEDs, however Poland does not intend to use CEDs in TRACES until the legal requirement is in place. 51. CEDs for feedingstuffs can be issued by BIPs, however no consignment of this type was imported during

15 52. The SPHSIS made a pilot project in 2013 in the three entry points (Warszawa Okęcie airport, Kukuryki-Koroszczyn and Terespol-Kobylany) for consignments for which a CHED-PP has to be issued. These entry points are using the CHED-PP module in TRACES for training purposes. Since there is currently no legal requirement to provide information in TRACES, the information is entered when the time is available to do so EXPORT module 53. The GVI provided copies of documents/letters from the Chief Veterinary Officer to the regional authorities to explain the use of the harmonised export certificates in TRACES. The current bilateral certificates are available on the web page of the GVI, however there is no tool to identify for certifying officers when the export certificates available in TRACES should be used. 54. The instructions on export certification for live animals and products does not provide guidance on usage of export certificates provided in TRACES. Conclusion on the use of TRACES 55. The use of TRACES for imports and intra-eu movements of live animals is generally correct. The system allows adequate communication between the competent authorities involved, issuing the correct certificates and notifying the movements of those consignments. Shortcomings noted in the users management and the follow-up of specific consignments (e.g. animals sent to abattoirs, animal by-products for intra-eu trade, consignments reimported, sent for destruction, to quarantine or approved bodies) weaken the communication between competent authorities and the traceability of the consignments is not ensured. Shortcoming in the case of live animals exported to third countries transiting through other Member States, compromised the possibility of controls during transport. 5.4 VERIFICATION AND REVIEW Legal Requirements Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, Directive 97/78/EC. Findings 56. There is a system of supervision developed within the import control sector, which includes verification of the correct use of TRACES. This includes both local supervision by the head of each BIP and central supervision via supervisory visits to each B IP by the Borders Office (4 BIPs are visited per year). However, this supervision mainly focuses on correcting individual mistakes done by BIP staff. Supervision did not identify the shortcomings described in this report (e.g. use of collective user accounts, control of re-entry horses, follow-up at controlled bodies and destruction plants). 57. The Border Office also carries out periodic reviews of TRACES from central level using 11

16 data warehouse and Clickview since December 2012 to monitor the confirmation of receipt and takes appropriate actions when receipt is not recorded as required in respect of consignments imported under Articles 8 and 15 of Directive 97/78/EC. 58. The Control office of the GVI audited all BIPs within the last four years and the reports include references to TRACES, but do not include evidence of an evaluation on the quality of the use of the TRACES by officials. 59. The regional coordinator stated that TRACES was used for management of economic operators at LVUs and statistical information. Requirements for the regional coordinators do not foresee the supervision duties on the use of TRACES for INTRA-CERTS and control of animal by-products issued and received by LVUs. 60. At LVUs there is no system of supervision or other activity to assess the correct use of TRACES, therefore shortcomings identified by this audit and described under findings have not been noticed. There is no routine or pro-active analysis/verification of data within TRACES. Records are checked only in response to problems identified by the competent authority of the Member State of destination. 61. An internal audit on official controls at assembly centres was carried out in 2011 and the report includes references to TRACES. However it does not include evidence of an evaluation on the use of TRACES by officials. Conclusion on verification and review 62. There is a system to assess the use of TRACES in BIPs by means of supervision. At the LVUs level the system of verification does not sufficiently cover the use of TRACES, therefore it is not ensured that deficiencies are detected and corrective actions are implemented when required. 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS Poland has designated a competent authority for use of TRACES in relation to products of animal origin and live animals. Other competent authorities use TRACES for non-animal origin products for training purposes. In general staff at BIPs and LVUs are qualified and experienced in relation to TRACES activities and use TRACES correctly, with the exception of the controls of live animals at abattoirs and animals exported to third countries transiting through other Member States, and the follow-up of specific consignments (e.g. animal by-products for intra-eu trade, consignments re-imported, sent for destruction, quarantine or approved bodies). In some areas the lack of sufficiently detailed documented procedures (instructions) in both BIPs and LVUs reduces the performance of the use of TRACES on these issues, therefore the relevant official controls are either not recorded or recorded incorrectly in TRACES, contrary to the legal requirements. The systematic approach to assess the use of TRACES in BIPs is developed, however the system of verification does not sufficiently cover the use of TRACES at LVUs level, where the verification system does not ensure that deficiencies are detected and corrective actions are implemented when required. 12

17 7 CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 28 February 2014 with representatives from the GVI, the State Sanitary Inspection, the State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service and the regional veterinary inspectorate of Lublin. At this meeting, the main findings and the preliminary conclusions of the audit were presented by the audit team. The GVI requested clarification in relation to some issues but did not express disagreement with the findings and conclusions presented. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The competent authority are invited to provide the details on actions taken and planned, aimed at addressing the recommendations set out below, within 25 working days of receipt of this audit report. N. Recommendation 1. To ensure that the system for verification of the use of TRACES covers different users, so that the related official controls are effective and appropriate, as laid down in Article 4.2 (a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Recommendation based on conclusion 62. Associated findings: 56, 57, 59 and To ensure that all required data is entered into TRACES, including relevant official controls at abattoirs and control posts and controls on consignments which require confirmation of receipt at destination, e.g. intra-eu movements of certain animal byproducts, sent to approved bodies or destruction consignments, as laid down in Decision 2004/292/EC. Recommendation based on conclusion 14. Associated findings: 7, 12, 28, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46 and 48. The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at: 13

18 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Dec. 92/486/EEC OJ L 291, , p Dec. 2009/821/EC OJ L 296, , p.1 Dec. 2004/292/EC OJ L 94, , p Dir. 90/425/EEC OJ L 224, , p Dir. 91/496/EEC OJ L 268, , p Reg. 882/2004 OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Reg. 136/2004 OJ L 21, , p /486/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 September 1992 establishing the form of cooperation between the Animo host centre and Member States 2009/821/EC: Commission Decision 2009/821/EC of 28 September 2009 drawing up a list of approved border inspection posts, laying down certain rules on the inspections carried out by Commission veterinary experts and laying down the veterinary units in Traces 2004/292/EC: Commission Decision of 30 March 2004 on the introduction of the Traces system and amending Decision 92/486/EEC Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries 14

19 Legal Reference Official Journal Title Reg. 282/2004 OJ L 49, , p Reg. 599/2004 OJ L 94, , p Reg. 1069/2009 OJ L 300, , p Dir. 97/78/EC OJ L 24, , p Reg. 669/2009 OJ L 194, , p Reg. 1152/2009 OJ L 313, , p Dec. 94/360/EC OJ L 158, , p Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 of 18 February 2004 introducing a document for the declaration of, and veterinary checks on, animals from third countries entering the Community Commission Regulation (EC) No 599/2004 of 30 March 2004 concerning the adoption of a harmonised model certificate and inspection report linked to intra-community trade in animals and products of animal origin Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal byproducts and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of nonanimal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC Commission Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 of 27 November 2009 imposing special conditions governing the import of certain foodstuffs from certain third countries due to contamination risk by aflatoxins and repealing Decision 2006/504/EC 94/360/EC: Commission Decision of 20 May 1994 on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be implemented from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC 15

20 Legal Reference Official Journal Title Dir. 2002/99/EC OJ L 18, , p Dec. 2000/571/EC OJ L 240, , p Dec. 93/444/EC OJ L 208, , p Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 16 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption 2000/571/EC: Commission Decision of 8 September 2000 laying down the methods of veterinary checks for products from third countries destined for introduction into free zones, free warehouses, customs warehouses or operators supplying cross border means of sea transport 93/444/EEC: Commission Decision of 2 July 1993 on detailed rules governing intra-community trade in certain live animals and products intended for exportation to third countries 16

21 ANNEX 2 - SUMMARY OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS A. Competent Authorities Article 1 of Decision 92/486/EEC, establishing the form of cooperation between the Animo host centre and Member States, requires those to designate an authority responsible for coordination between the different authorities within the Member State. Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires efficient and effective coordination and cooperation between different competent authorities. Article 4(5) requires that, when more than one unit within the same competent authority is competent to carry out official controls, efficient and effective coordination and cooperation is ensured between those units. B. Resources for the performance of controls Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to have a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff, and to have appropriate and properly maintained equipment. Article 6 of the Regulation requires competent authorities to ensure that their staff receive appropriate training, and are kept up-to-date in their competencies. Article 8 requires that competent authorities carry out their official controls in accordance with documented procedures, containing information and instructions for staff performing official controls. C. Use of TRACES Article 3 (2) of Decision 2004/292/EC requires to use the TRACES for all consignments presented to BIPs. This system is then used as a communication tool between the different competent authorities involved in the controls of specific consignments, e.g. live animals, channelled and rejected consignments of products, non-eu-complying consignments intended for transit, warehouse storage or ship supply. Decision 2004/292/EC requires to use TRACES for recording and transmitting all the information contained in the common veterinary entry documents provided for in Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 -for products-, in the common veterinary entry documents provided for in Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 -for animals-, and in the certificates for intra-community trade as harmonised by Regulation (EC) No 599/2004. Article 48.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 requires the competent authority of the Member State of origin to inform the competent authority of the Member State of destination, by means of the TRACES system, of the dispatch of specific types of consignments sent to the Member State of destination. The competent authority of destination shall inform the competent authority of the Member State of origin of the arrival of each consignment by means of TRACES. Article 4.2 of Directive 90/425/EEC requires the competent authority of the Member State of origin issuing a certificate or document accompanying animals and products, to communicate this information to the competent authority of destination by means of TRACES, on the day on which those documents were issued. Article 2 of Decision 93/444/EEC requires the competent authority of the Member State of origin to to ensure the each consignment of live animals intended for export to third countries is accompanied by a certificate (provided for in Article 3(1)(d) of Directive 90/425/EEC). Article 5 of 17

22 the same Decision requires to communicate this information to the competent authority of the place of destination and Member State(s) of transit by means of TRACES. D. Verification and review Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authorities to ensure the impartiality, consistency and quality of official controls at all levels and to guarantee the effectiveness and appropriateness of official controls, and to carry out internal audits, or have external audits carried out. Article 8 requires to have procedures in place to verify the effectiveness of official controls, to ensure effectiveness of corrective action and to update documentation where needed. 18