FINAL REPORT LITHUANIA IMPORT CONTROLS AND BORDER INSPECTION POSTS

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANCO)/8056/2006-MR Final FINAL REPORT OF A MISSION TO LITHUANIA FROM 30 JANUARY TO 3 FEBRUARY 2006 CONCERNING IMPORT CONTROLS AND BORDER INSPECTION POSTS Please note that factual errors in the draft report have been corrected. Clarifications provided by the Competent Authorities of Lithuania are given as footnotes, in bold, italic, type, to the relevant part of the report. 02/05/

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the outcome of a mission carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in Lithuania, from 30 January to 3 February Its overall objectives were to assess the import control system and measures in place to detect illegal imports of live animals and products of animal origin. The report concludes that the import control system in place has been improved in certain areas. However, a number of significant deficiencies remain. The system for the supervision and approval of customs warehouses is inadequate. Traceability of non-eu complying consignments is not always ensured. Currently consignments not fulfilling EU animal health rules are not authorised for transit or storage. As regards those which were introduced during 2005, the CCA stated that some corrective measures had been taken to re-dispatch or destroy; there was no overview of their fate. There was an inadequate system to follow up transit consignments and there was no confirmation that all consignments had exited the EU territory. Co-operation with customs is insufficient and change of destination in relation to the movements of non-eu complying consignments is allowed by customs. Training is carried out but not all the procedures are covered. Two BIPs (Malkos and Vilnius) are constructed in accordance with EU requirements and one BIP (Molo) has major shortcomings for facilities and hygiene. Procedures and records for the destruction of kitchen waste are not fully in accordance with EU requirements. There are no specific measures for the detection of illegal imports, responsibilities are not clearly defined and not harmonised controls are carried out in the different entry points. Information provided to other authorities and to passengers in relation to products of animal origin and to non commercial pet animals is insufficient. Measures to apply seizure and records of illegal imports, penalties and sanctions for the cost destruction are not fully developed and not always applied. Incomplete and delayed implementation of EU legislation e.g. Regulations 1774/2002, 745/2004, 998/2003 was noted. The report makes a number of recommendations addressed to the Lithuanian competent authorities, aimed at rectifying the identified shortcomings and/or further enhancing the control measures in place. i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE MISSION LEGAL BASIS BACKGROUND FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS GENERAL FINDINGS FINDINGS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSED BIPS CONCLUSIONS COMPETENT AUTHORITY BIP INFRASTRUCTURE PROCEDURES OVERALL ASSESSMENT CLOSING MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS...14 TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF LITHUANIA ADDENDUM TO MISSION REPORT DG(SANCO)/8056/ ANNEX 1: LEGAL REFERENCES...17 ANNEX 2: BIP INSPECTION RECORD...16 ANNEX 3 STATISTICS...20 ANNEX: 4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF LITHUANIA...21 ii

4 Terms and abbreviations used in this report Approval categories Categories of live animals and animals products for the receipt of which BIPs are approved in accordance with Commission Decision 2001/881/EC, as follows: HC NHC NT T Products fit for human consumption Products not fit for human consumption No temperature requirements Frozen/chilled products T(CH) Chilled products BIP BTSVS CA CCA CITES T(FR) Frozen products (2) Packed products only O Live animals: other animals (including zoo animals) Border Inspection Post as defined in Council Directives 97/78/EC and 91/496/EEC Border and Transport State Veterinary Service Competent Authority Central Competent Authority Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CN Combined Nomenclature by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 CVED CVO Decision on the consignment Common veterinary entry document for products of animal origin as laid down in Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and for live animals as laid down in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004, as amended. Chief Veterinary Officer The decision made by the official veterinarian at the BIP and entered on the CVED, as to the outcome of veterinary checks and the resulting fate of consignments. FVO Hygienic necessities IC Kitchen waste Manifest MA NCTS POAO Positive list RASFF messages SFVS TRACES Food and Veterinary Office Dispensers for soap, for disinfecting fluid or for single use hand towels at hand wash basin Inspection Centre Kitchen waste from means of transport operating internationally List of consignments carried by boat, rail or aeroplane arriving in ports/rail/airports of destination Ministry of Agriculture New Computerised Transit System Products of animal origin List of commodities of animal origin which are subject to veterinary checks in BIPs, as specified in Commission Decision 2002/349/EC Messages used in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed of the European Commission State Food and Veterinary Service TRAffic Control and Expert System introduced by Commission Decision 2004/292/EC iii

5 1. INTRODUCTION This mission to Lithuania took place from 30 January to 3 February The mission team comprised two inspectors from the FVO. The mission was undertaken as part of the FVO s planned mission programme. During the mission, the inspection team was accompanied by representatives from the CCA, the State Food and Veterinary Serice (SFVS) and its subordinate institution, the Border and Transport State Veterinary Service (BTSVS). An opening meeting was held on 30 January 2006 with the representatives from the CCA, BTSVS, Customs, Ministry of Agriculture and Border Protection Service. At this meeting, the inspection team confirmed the objectives of and itinerary for the mission. Additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the mission was requested and provided by the CCA. Opening meetings and short summary meetings were also held at each BIP visited. 2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE MISSION The objectives of the mission were: - to evaluate the import control system in place for products of animal origin and live animals and to assess the implementation of measures regarding products of animal origin for personal consumption; - to verify the application of EU requirements, and within this context to assess the evolution of the situation in response to previous FVO-missions; - to verify whether the relevant EU provisions in relation to infrastructure, equipment, and working procedures are correctly applied at the approved BIPs visited. The mission scope covered the import control system at central, regional and local level including various categories of entry points, and the general elements of the systems put in place to prevent and detect illegal imports to give effect to EU rules on imports of products of animal origin and live animals. In terms of the criteria applied, the assessment was undertaken against the requirements set out in Council Directives 97/78/EC (1,a), 91/496/EEC (b), 96/43/EC (c), the relevant implementing Regulations and Decisions, Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 (d) and Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 (e) of the European Parliament and of the Council. In pursuit of the mission objectives, the following were visited/meetings were held with: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Comments Authority Central Opening and closing meetings Local Meetings in the course of visits to the BIPs Customs On the spot visit in the course of visits to the BIPs Catering establishment 1 On the spot visit in the course of visits to the BIP Customs warehouses 2 Two of the customs warehouses approved for operating with non-eu-complying products. Entry points 4 One international airport, one mail post and two port entry points. (1) Legal acts quoted in this report are provided in Annex 1 and refer, where applicable to the last amended version. 1

6 3. LEGAL BASIS The mission was carried out under the general provisions of Community legislation and in particular under the requirements of Artt. 6 and 23 of Directive 97/78/EC, Artt. 6 and 19 of Directive 91/496/EEC, of Commission Decision 98/139/EC (f), Art. 6 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC (g), Art. 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (h) and Art. 2 of Commission Decision 2001/881/EC (i). 4. BACKGROUND This was the first mission in the field of import controls of products of animal origin and live animals after Lithuania s accession into the EU. Three BIPs were visited in relation to 12 BIPs approved under Decision 2001/881/EC for Lithuania. Location Type Approval in accordance with Decision 2001/881/EC Number of consignments in 2005 Malkų įlankos Port HC, NHC 5849 Molo Port HC-T(FR)(2), HC-NT(2), NHC-T(FR)(2), NHC-NT(2) 183 Vilnius Airport *HC, NHC, O 48 *less than 500 consignments per year 5. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS 5.1. GENERAL FINDINGS Organisation of veterinary administration The SFVS is the CCA. The BTSVS is a subordinate institution of the SFVS and the CA for veterinary control at the BIPs. The BIPs are subordinate to BTSVS. There are considerable changes regarding structure and organisation of the veterinary administration after Lithuania s accession into the EU. Since two departments have been established within the BTSVS in order to strengthen supervision and control of the BIPs: the Management of the Activities Department and the Surveillance of Veterinary Procedure Department. An Internal Audit Department was established in April 2005 within the SFVS which also started to inspect the BIPs. A few customs warehouses (7) are under the supervision of the BIP staff and most of them (38) are under the supervision of the regional SFVS. There is some overlapping of responsibilities between BIPs and regional SFVS for the supervision of kitchen waste. The number of veterinary staff for BIP matters at central level is sufficient Legislative and administrative measures All Regulations and Decisions are directly applicable in the Republic of Lithuania and they come into force from the date of publication in the EU Official journal. The national implementing measures issued for implementation of the EU legislation must be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Lithuania and these measures are considerably delayed e.g.: 2

7 by the Order nr B1-601 of the Director of SFVS published on the first implementing measures were established and by the Order nr B1-563 of the records to be kept at BIPs were decided for personal baggage controls of POAO of Regulation 745/2004(of ); by the Order Nr B1-932 of the Director of SFVS published on there were implementing measures for the checks of non-commercial pet animals and with another Order on B1-21 of the points of entry were decided for these animals of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 (of ); by the Order Nr B1-558 of the Director of SFVS published on the commercial document was approved for kitchen waste of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (of ) (j). The responsibilities between the BIPs, the Customs of the Ministry of Finance and the Border Guards of the Ministry of Interior are not clearly defined for the controls of illegal imports of products of animal origin in personal baggage of travellers under the Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 and for non-commercial pet animals under the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Under the Lithuanian implementing provisions the BIP staff is responsible for the checks but there is no veterinary staff in all points of entry. As a result the controls are not harmonised. There are points of entry where only border guards or only customs are present. However, customs stated that they are not fully responsible to implement the required controls for personal baggage controls of products of animal origin and a Government Resolution is necessary in this regard. As requested in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (k), a general sampling monitoring plan for imported products has been drawn up but it does not take into consideration the categories of consignments handled in the various BIPs. As a result no tests are carried out in some BIPs and the plan is incomplete as not all the products (e.g. no tests for honey) and not all required substances (e.g. no tests for hormones) are included. National provisions do not require payment of fees before clearance of a consignment, nor do they require Customs or BIP staff be informed whether payment has been received before clearance. This is not in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 3 of Directive 97/78/EC and Annex A, Chapter III, section II paragraph 5 and Annex C Chapter II of Directive 96/43/EC. There were some introduced consignments (e.g. fresh pork meat from Brazil certified wrongly as heat treated ), not complying with animal health requirements, for which Lithuania requested from Brazil since if the relevant health certificates were authentic. However, no response had been received from Brazil yet Official publication 1999/C 356/02 Based on Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (l) of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, list (1999/C 356/02 (m) ) catalogues all places of introduction and export designated by Member States for trade with third countries in accordance with Art. VIII (3) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Lithuanian list defines as points of entry for CITES, only the places where there are BIPs. However, this list does not include all places where CITES 3

8 products of animal origin are introduced e.g. the mail post is not included in this list although for customs it is classified as a CITES point of entry (2) Supervision of the BIPs Although the BTSVS is expected to inspect the BIPs twice yearly, until now there were no formalised inspections and after accession only a few were carried out for specific problems. Inspection of four BIPs was carried out in January 2006 by the Audit Department of the SFVS. Some corrective action was undertaken after these inspections. For 2006, no plan of inspections of BIPs exists and the BTSVS stated that the frequencies would be decided in February 2006 based on a risk assessment. A checklist for supervision of BIPs has been drawn up but it is not detailed enough for the procedures. For products an updated manual of procedures exists but not for live animals. Supervision of customs warehouses has not yet been fully formalised for import control matters (no checklist, no frequency established), and significant deficiencies for facilities and procedures were noted Co-operation between different authorities At central level, there are co-operation agreements (one since and one since ) between the CCA, Customs, Plant Protection and Border Protection Services. However, no meetings have been held since The CCA stated that a meeting will be organised shortly and efforts are being made to improve co-operation with all authorities. Some progress in co-operation was noted, for example customs, in co-operation with the CCA, produced a new leaflet for illegal imports in personal baggage for distribution to travellers. BIP staff has no access to customs databases as required by Art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Art. 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 (n).there are no harmonised procedures for the exchange of information between customs and BIPs. In one port BIP, customs send electronically the manifests to the BIP but this does not happen at the airport BIP. Customs stated that they will need 1-2 years in order to integrate the information systems with the veterinary services. At local level, co-operation is not yet formalised, in one BIP meetings were taking place with customs e.g. regarding the change of destination of the consignments in relation to veterinary certificate destination. However, this continues to be allowed by customs. At local level co-operation of the BIP was not enough with airport authorities concerning the display of posters and with regional veterinary services for kitchen waste. There was no positive list given to border guards for the control of illegal imports. (2) In their response to the draft report the CCA of Lithuania noted that the Customs Department informed them that there is no need to amend the list of CITES points of entry since the mail post office does not have the status of separate point of entry and belongs to Vilnius airport customs control post. 4

9 Training of the veterinary staff In 2005, training courses for some BIP staff were organised by the CCA. However, training was not enough in particular in relation to deficiencies noted for the procedures. There were incomplete or no training records for staff at the BIPs visited FINDINGS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSED BIPS The specific findings in the BIPs visited are included in Annex 2 to this report Number of veterinary staff The number of staff in the BIPs visited is sufficient. However, in Vilnius airport might be not sufficient in relation to recent tasks for traveller s baggage controls assigned to veterinary staff, which requires their continuous presence Facilities, equipment, hygiene Equipment and cleaning was satisfactory in all BIPs visited. Two BIPs (Malkų įlankos and Vilnius) are constructed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant EU legislation for the categories approved. The CCA stated that extension of the customs designated area to include the Malkų įlankos BIP in the same unloading area as the terminals has been decided but not yet put in place. In one BIP Molo, major deficiencies were noted mainly for the category NHC-FR in relation to the location of the store which is a separate container not linked to the unloading area of the BIP. The design of another store for HC-FR products which is inside a commercial customs warehouse could not ensure the security of the consignments for the BIP from the consignments of the warehouse and did not minimise the risk of cross contamination between consignments of different status. In addition, the consignments were unloaded in bulk, without protection against the weather conditions and maintenance of the cold chain temperature during unloading was not ensured. Other minor deficiencies are described in Annex Facilities outwith the proposed BIP Each proposed BIP visited indicated that laboratories and rendering plants were available. However, there were delays in the destruction of rejected consignments in the only available incinerator in the country Documentation and registration The BIPs are informed for updated documentation from central level of the BTSVS and all BIPs have access electronically to legislative databases including from the Commission. However, certain shortcomings were noted (no veterinary agreements with third countries were available, no lists of approved channelled establishments, incomplete lists of incinerators and rendering plants). A new electronic registration system (COACH) started to be used since January 2006 but is not yet entirely developed. As there were no overviews available yet, BIPs continued to use hand written registers which were incomplete (e.g. no number of boxes, incomplete details for time and means of transport, for health certificate details of re-dispatched consignments etc) in relation to the information foreseen in Decisions 97/394/EC (o) and 97/152/EC (p) and a rapid analysis of data was not possible. 5

10 There was no register for follow up of deadlines for the exit of transit consignments in one BIP. Records were incomplete e.g. for kitchen waste, for checks in customs warehouses Identification and selection of the consignments It was positively noted that for every arriving ship it is foreseen that a committee (from customs, veterinary, plant protection and border guard services) visits the ship before permitting the unloading. Identification and selection of consignments is carried out by BIP staff based on information received from the persons responsible for the load. The official veterinarian has an overview of arriving or transiting consignments based on the receipt of cargo manifests. However, cross checks are delayed after arrival of the consignments and not always carried out (e.g. for consolidated consignments) in particular for the airport. Customs electronic import database (ASYCUDA) links CN-codes with live animals and products listed in Commission Decision 2002/349/EC (q) which are subject to veterinary checks. The positive list used in this database for identification of the consignments subject to veterinary checks was quite complete (only few CN codes e.g. 1505, 4205 were not linked to veterinary checks). Customs use risk assessment criteria in this system. However, there is no such link with CN codes in the customs database for transit from third countries (NCTS). Considering the big number of consignments received for transit in Lithuania there is a big gap in the system for identification of these consignments by customs (3) Procedures There was a functioning import control system in place. However, certain procedures were not correctly applied Pre-notification and notification of consignments Pre-notification is not always received before arrival in some cases even days after the arrival at the port/airport Documentary, identity and physical checks - laboratory tests The following deficiencies were noted: Consignments from third countries in transit to other third countries are split at the BIP of entry and in the customs warehouses and the original health certificate is accompanying only part of the consignments. Copies of the original health certificates are accompanying the other parts of the relevant consignments. The copies are not marked by the CA with information on the revised quantity to accompany each part consignment. Identity checks were carried out in part of the consignments presented at one BIP. The reduced physical check regime was not applied in an unpredictable manner, nor was it applied per third country of origin. Reduced checks were carried out (3) In their response to the draft report the CCA of Lithuania noted that the Customs Department has informed them that the customs database for transit from third countries (NCTS) is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of European Commission (Lithuanian customs use MCC program package created by European Commission). 6

11 also for non harmonised products. Imports of fishery products were carried out from third countries listed in Part Two of the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC (r). However, there was no national list of approved establishments from these third countries (4). The reinforced check regime was wrongly applied as consignments under suspicion were sampled but not kept at the BIP until the laboratory result was issued and were sent to destination Veterinary decision The channelling procedure was not followed (e.g. for raw material from poultry for the manufacture of petfood), no feedback was received at the BIP from the place of destination and there was no list of approved channelled intermediate and processing establishments in Lithuania, [Article 8 paragraphs 4 and 6 of Directive 97/78/EC and Annex VIII chapter XI of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002]. Rejected consignments were kept under customs but not under veterinary supervision. There was no CVED issued for consignments imported as trade samples but there were no measures to ensure that these were not marketed, [Article 16(1e) of Directive 97/78/EC]. Consignments accompanied with one health certificate were split without one CVED being issued for the whole consignment ( mother ) and then more than one CVEDs ( daughter ) were issued and traceability was not possible. Definition of consignment was not always respected Transit In one BIP there was inadequate follow up of consignments in transit and their exit from EU territory was not verified. Consignments in exit transit were not always subjected to veterinary checks at the BIP of exit and customs had to investigate for them. Consignments non complying with EU requirements, including EU animal health requirements, (e.g. fresh pork meat from Brazil and China, fresh beef offal from Brazil, Argentina), were not always confirmed from exit BIPs in other Member States (e.g. Poland, Latvia) that they exited EU territory even months after the deadline for leaving the Community (30 days) had elapsed. Consignments non complying with EU requirements, including EU animal health requirements were introduced in the BIPs and customs warehouses in 2005 were split several times and there was no clear overview of the fate of these consignments ANIMO/TRACES TRACES information is entered by BIP staff but not all consignments are recorded in the system in particular the mother CVEDs in case of split consignments in one BIP. The CVEDs are entered by BIP staff in TRACES with some delay (even months) after the actually issued CVEDs and instances of (4) In their response to the draft report the CCA of Lithuania noted that the matter of national list of approved establishments of fishery products imported from USA will not be implemented as the Commission Decision 2006/199/EC laying down specific conditions for imports of fishery products from the USA will come into force from 24 April

12 different data in TRACES from the actually issued CVED were noted. RASFF messages are sent. In the customs warehouses visited, there is no access to TRACES and the ANIMO unit number of the nearest BIP is used to issue a new CVED for each part of a consignment when consignments of non-eu-complying products are split into several parts. This procedure does not allow the BIP of exit to confirm to the customs warehouse of dispatch, that the consignment had left the EU territory, as specified in Art. 12 (8) combined with Art. 11 (2) (e) of Directive 97/78/EC (5) Free and customs warehouses, and ship suppliers The CCA stated that at present no ship suppliers are approved in accordance with Art. 13 of Directive 97/78/EC, as they trade only EU-complying consignments. The CCA stated that there are no free warehouses and no free zones in Lithuania. An updated list of customs warehouses approved in accordance with Art. 12 (4) of Directive 97/78/EC was provided at the time of the mission. However, this list was not always up to date in the BIPs visited. There are customs warehouses not having EU approval under vertical legislation although they store relevant consignments. At the terminal of a BIP, there was one custom warehouse visited, which was included in the list of approved under Article 12(4) of Directive 97/78/EC customs warehouses. Reloading activities were carried out in this warehouse without fulfilling even the basic hygiene and structural requirements. Some customs warehouses do not have the required facilities (e.g. no separate storage, no facilities for the veterinary services) required by EU provisions for non-eu complying products of animal origin. As a result these products were stored in the same storage room with EU-complying products in contravention of the requirements of Art. 12 (4) (b, fourth indent) of Directive 97/78/EC. The non- EU complying consignments were not adequately secured. Not all customs warehouses comply with the hygiene rules of the vertical EU legislation [Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (s) or Article 10 of Council Directive 64/433/EEC (t) ]. Quarterly inspections of approved customs warehouses were decided to be carried out by the BTSVS and the regional SFVS. However, no frequencies have been decided for 2006 by the Audit Department of the SFVS in order to supervise them. There is no detailed checklist established in relation to the supervision and traceability for non EU-complying consignments. The BIPs send weekly information to central BTSVS for the movement of consignments in customs warehouses. At the customs warehouse visited, there were deficiencies found regarding records, and registration overall was incomplete for non-eu-complying consignments. In addition, not all units of the non-eu-conforming consignments were labelled with the number of the corresponding CVED [Art. 1 (5) of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC (u) ]. Two different registers of consignments were kept, one at the BIP and one at the customs warehouse, with different kind of information. Traceability was not always ensured. Although there was an instruction issued on from central veterinary and customs services concerning the agreement of destination of the (5) In their response to the draft report the CCA of Lithuania noted that TRACES system does not allow connecting the customs warehouses which are under control of territorial State Food and Veterinary Services to the TRACES database in order to enter the information of CVEDs. 8

13 consignments in customs documents in relation to the CVED destination, the change of destination in relation to the veterinary certificate destination continues to be allowed by customs Kitchen waste There are no harmonised procedures for the supervision and destruction of kitchen waste. At the airports responsibilities are shared between BIPs and regional veterinary services and the kitchen waste is incinerated. The BIP did not have adequate knowledge of the results of the checks carried out by the regional veterinary services. At the caterer visited there were no records for outgoing waste and commercial documents are incomplete (e.g. no approval number and no feedback from incinerator), bags for collection were not identified as category 1 material and were not sealed. After the Order of Director B1-558 published on for the enforcement of the commercial document required by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, the new revised commercial document was recently issued (January 2006). At the ports there is no clear allocation of responsibilities between veterinary services and port authorities for the supervision of kitchen waste. Its disposal is carried out as general waste at landfills which are not approved under Directive 1999/31/EC (v). The BIPs did not have knowledge if the destruction of kitchen waste was supervised by the regional veterinary services and no commercial documents, as required by Regulation 1774/2002/EC, were available for ports Inspection Fees Fees are paid about one month after veterinary clearance but the provisions of EU legislation are not followed as the fees are not paid for each consignment before release and customs do not check this aspect Checks on import of products of animal origin for personal consumption, non-commercial pet animals and illegal imports Although there are general cooperation agreements between customs, border guards and veterinary services there are no clear responsibilities established in relation to the controls of products of animal origin in personal baggage and non-commercial pet animals. In some points of entry the BIPs are responsible for the checks and are called for the seizure of the illegal consignments. However, there are points of entry where only customs or in others only border guards are present and the veterinarians are not always available. There are no instructions to border guards and customs for these tasks from central level of their services Products of animal origin for personal consumption At the mail post no equipment (e.g. scanning) or sniffer dogs was used for screening large volumes of parcels for detection of illegal imports of products of animal origin nor was training provided to customs in this regard. 100% documentary checks and 5-10% of parcels are opened for other routine customs priorities (e.g. drugs, tobacco, guns) (6). There is no access at the post to the (6) In their response to the draft report the CCA of Lithuania noted that Customs department informed them that customs checks at customs mail post includes 100% scanning equipment and after that documentary check and, if needed, detailed (physical) check is performed. The used scanning equipment is not adapted to check products of animal origin. 9

14 electronic database ASYCUDA for the clearance of the consignments. Customs do not have the authority to seize POAO and need to call the regional veterinary services for that. No instructions or information for the list of third countries for permitted POAO and nothing for risk countries for live animals were available. The mail post is also a CITES point of entry but not for non-commercial pet animals. Apart from a few CITES consignments, no POAO or live animals had been found in Lithuania sent information after the mission concerning the Community points of entry for travellers from third countries. There are 15 road entry points at the border to Belarus, 9 road entry points at the border to Russia, 4 seaports and 4 airports. At the airport entry point visited posters were not displayed in all points of entry in a manner to be easily visible; in some cases posters were not up to date [Art. 3 and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 745/2004]. Customs stated that in addition, information is provided also by leaflets but no in-flight announcements are made. There are no specific measures for the detection of illegal imports of products of animal origin in all points of entry. Border guards had not received the positive list. Customs have priorities other than products of animal origin. There was no information about the list of third countries and products permitted from different third countries in personal luggage. As a result the exemptions permitted by Article 8 of Regulation 136/2004/EC were not implemented correctly. The entry points visited were permanently staffed by customs who carried out the controls on baggage of travellers or in parcels arriving from third countries within their other tasks. Scanning equipment was available but not for POAO; however, no other specific measures such as additional staff or sniffer dogs, trained for meat or milk products, were in place. Customs carry out random checks on personal luggage. The selection is based on personal experience of the customs officer. In general, checks were carried out by using scanning equipment in some points of entry and in addition in 4-5% by physically opening the baggage. Customs stated, that at the airport entry point the amount of POAO found has increased due to their intensified checks. Seizures of products of animal origin were recorded only by the BIP staff at the airport visited. Recording started in October 2005; and since then, 59 consignments weighing 159kg were found. Border guards seized 1 consignment in 2005 for the 8 road entry points to Belarus checked by them. No overview of seizures for the whole country was available. Not all relevant data for the report requested by Art. 5 and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 were recorded, e.g. type of products or third country of origin of products also for interline passengers. No information for 2004 was sent to the Commission concerning measures for awareness and enforcement for the whole country as it is foreseen. Some CITES consignments, including 14 CITES live animals were seized by customs in Customs stated that apart from abandoned consignments, they did not detect illegal imports in freight or personal baggage consignments in

15 There was incomplete information in the commercial documents accompanying the seized products for destruction (e.g. no name, no approval number of incinerator and no feedback). Records were not kept by customs for collection and disposal of seized products, as they do not have sufficient competencies for that. When customs find illegal POAO in personal baggage, they generally do not seize it but give the passenger the option of voluntarily abandoning it. The passenger is not liable for the cost of destruction and no penalties are imposed. There were no waste bins for the collection of illegal products of animal origin and the veterinarian at the airport visited had to collect the abandoned consignments and to complete the form for seizure and destruction of products of animal origin. However, the veterinarian was not always available at all times in all points of entry. It was stated by the CCA that national legislation provides for penalties for attempted illegal importation of products of animal origin but these have not been implemented so far Non-commercial pet animals A list of points of entry for pet animals, as required by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, exists. These points are only through the relevant BIPs as the veterinary BIP staff is responsible for the checks and customs direct such cases to the official veterinarian of the BIP if they find such consignments. Customs were not equipped with micro chip readers in the entry points although it was not clearly defined if they have any responsibility for checks at any entry points where no veterinary staff was available. There is no instruction and no procedure in place for customs, to deal with such pet animals, arriving at an international airport where there is no BIP Freight consignments For commercial freight consignments customs carry out 30% documentary checks and 5% physical checks. No scanning is carried out. Customs had not detected undeclared or wrongly declared consignments of products of animal origin or live animals. The CCA stated that all consignments not complying with animal health rules (e.g. pork meat from China and buffalo meat from India) which were introduced in Lithuania in 2005 had been destroyed or re-dispatched. It was also stated that currently there were no consignments which do not comply with animal health rules stored in Lithuania, apart from one consignment which was awaiting destruction shortly. 6. CONCLUSIONS A functioning import control system is in place. However, a number of significant deficiencies were noted COMPETENT AUTHORITY 1. Overlapping and unclear responsibilities between different authorities in a number of areas (kitchen waste, illegal imports of POAO in traveller s baggage, noncommercial pets) cause inconsistent approaches and no checks in some cases. The significant delays for implementing measures of EU legislation lead to gaps for the timely application of the requirements (Regulations 1774/2002, 745/2004 and 998/2003). 11

16 2. As the list of points of entry for CITES-consignments does not include all the places where such consignments are actually introduced, veterinary checks of POAO are not always ensured. 3. Although the BIPs have functioning systems in place, no supervisory programme for BIPs and customs warehouses (approved in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC) has been formalised. Therefore, harmonised import controls and updated legislation in BIPs are not ensured. The same applies to the training of staff which is not satisfactory for all staff. Supervision of customs warehouses is not sufficient as storage, registration and labelling of non-eu-complying POAO are not in line with the requirements of Directive 97/78/EC, Decision 2000/571/EC and vertical legislation. Administrative and other supporting measures including working instructions, manuals, checklists, guidelines and procedures for products and live animals are incomplete. 4. Co-operation between the authorities involved in import controls is not sufficient. Therefore, change of destination of the consignments occurs and there is no access to customs databases between all involved authorities, which is not in accordance with the requirements of Regulations (EC) No 136/2004 and (EC) No 282/ Number of staff is sufficient at central and local level apart from the BIP Vilnius in relation to the new tasks of BIP staff for personal baggage checks. 6. The annual sampling monitoring plan is incomplete, not applied in all BIPs and is not in accordance with the provisions of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 and Council Directive 96/23/EC (w). 7. There was corrective action taken by CCA for consignments not complying with EU animal health requirements introduced in 2005, including RASFF messages for information of other Member States. However, the fate of the consignments was not ensured and Commission Decisions 2005/93/EC (x) and 2004/372/EC (y) were not implemented. 8. No harmonised system is established to record seizures of POAO by customs. Due to the lack of information provided by local customs authorities, CCA has no complete overview for seized/abandoned consignments of POAO and could not send a fully completed report for 2004 [Regulation (EC) No 745/2004]. 9. Information to travellers concerning personal import of POAO is not adequately developed and there is a risk of introduction of such products BIP INFRASTRUCTURE 1. The infrastructures for two BIPs (Malkų įlankos, Molo) comply with the EU requirements for the categories as they are currently approved. 2. The facilities for one BIP (Molo) do not comply with the requirements of Directive 97/78/EC and Decision 2001/812/EC for certain categories of its current approval. 3. Some customs warehouses used in conjunction with some BIPs and the list of approved warehouses were not in accordance with EU requirements. 4. The administrative and technical equipment and cleaning is satisfactory for all BIPs. 5. The delays for the destruction of rejected consignments are an increased risk also concerning their security during storage, which is not always under veterinary supervision. 12

17 6.3. PROCEDURES 1. There is a system in place to identify and select consignments: manifests of arriving or transiting consignments are received but there are some gaps in particular for consignments in transit and for cross checks of manifests with prenotifications, which makes the system not entirely reliable. As the customs electronic selection system is not linked with the CN codes for consignments in transit, consignments may bypass the BIPs without veterinary checks, if the manual selection system has failed. 2. The incomplete documentation, registration and records are not in line with the requirements laid down in points 3 and 4 of the Annex to Decision 2001/812/EC and Decisions 97/394/EC and 97/152/EC. The CCA expects to overcome these problems by using a new electronic system (COACH) which was deployed on There were gaps in the use of TRACES and as the information was entered in the system after issuing the CVEDs it was not ensured that TRACES had the same information as in the CVEDs actually issued. 3. The procedures in place do not ensure that veterinary checks, including laboratory tests, and follow up of transit consignments are carried out in compliance with Directive 97/78/EC and the annexed Decisions and Regulations. 4. As the supervision for customs warehouses, transit and for non-eu-conforming consignments is insufficient in relation to the provisions foreseen in Directive 97/78/EC and Decision 2000/571/EC, traceability and the exit of consignments is not always confirmed and ensured. As the illegal distribution of such consignments cannot be fully ruled out, there is an increased animal and public health risk. 5. Supervision for the destruction of kitchen waste is not harmonised in all places in accordance with Article 16(1)(c) of Directive 97/78/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. Thus the appropriate destruction of products with a possible animal health risk cannot always be confirmed. 6. Fees were not collected before the release of the consignments which is not in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 3 of Directive 97/78/EC and Annex A, Chapter III, section II paragraph 5 and Annex C Chapter II of Directive 96/43/EC. 7. The system to check for illegal imports is not harmonised, as incomplete checks were carried out by customs due to insufficient allocation of responsibilities. Therefore, illegal introduction of POAO or live animals cannot completely be excluded. As no penalties, no seizure and no liability for the cost of destruction was applied there was no deterrent measures for the travellers to prevent illegal imports. Records were incomplete not in accordance to Annex IV of Regulation 745/2004. There was no adequate records and follow up for the disposal of seized consignments and traceability of such seizures was not ensured OVERALL ASSESSMENT The report concludes that the import control system in place has been improved in certain areas. However, a number of significant deficiencies remain. The system for the supervision and approval of customs warehouses is inadequate. Traceability of non-eu complying consignments is not always ensured. Currently consignments not fulfilling EU animal health rules are not authorised for transit or storage. As regards those which were introduced during 2005, the CCA stated that some corrective measures had been taken to re-dispatch or destroy; there was no overview of their fate. There was an inadequate system to follow up transit consignments and there was no confirmation that all consignments had exited the EU 13

18 territory. Co-operation with customs is insufficient and change of destination in relation to the movements of non-eu complying consignments is allowed by customs. Training is carried out but is not enough for the procedures. Two BIPs (Malkos and Vilnius) are constructed in accordance with EU requirements and one BIP (Molo) has major shortcomings for facilities and hygiene. Procedures and records for the destruction of kitchen waste are not fully in accordance with EU requirements. There are no specific measures for the detection of illegal imports, responsibilities are not clearly defined and not harmonised controls are carried out in the different entry points. Information provided to other authorities and to passengers in relation to products of animal origin and to non commercial pet animals is insufficient. Measures to apply seizure and records of illegal imports, penalties and sanctions for the cost destruction are not fully developed and not always applied. Incomplete and delayed implementation of EU legislation e.g. Regulations 1774/2002, 745/2004, 998/2003 was noted. 7. CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 3 February 2006 with representatives from the CCA, BTSVS, Customs, Ministry of Agriculture and Border Protection Service. At this meeting, the main findings and the preliminary conclusions of the mission were presented by the inspection team. The CCA did not express disagreement with these. Closing meetings were also held at each proposed BIP visited in order to present the main findings. The representatives responded as follows: - The CCA stated that co-operation with other authorities is important; a joined group with customs will discuss to improve the situation. There are problems concerning veterinary and customs legislation which are not harmonised. Meetings with the heads of BIPs will be organised in order to rectify the deficiencies noted. Most of the deficiencies were noted in customs warehouses and a number of legal acts issued are not fully enforced. Two warehouses were closed due to infringements noted. Additional measures will be applied. In 15 days all the deficiencies noted will be rectified. - Customs stated that they restructured the legal system and the information system after accession. All remarks are taken under consideration but it will take 1-2 years to integrate the information system with the veterinary services. There are no sufficient competencies for personal luggage checks of products of animal origin and a Government Resolution is necessary in this regard. More attention will be paid to veterinary matters. - Border protection service stated that co-operation and training will be improved in order to eliminate the shortcomings noted. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF LITHUANIA The competent authorities are invited to provide, within one month of receipt of the translated final report, a response including an action plan setting out the actions planned/undertaken to satisfactorily address the recommendations set out in Annex 4, along with a timetable for completion of these actions, but which should not exceed the deadlines indicated. 14

19 9. ADDENDUM TO MISSION REPORT DG(SANCO)/8056/2006 In response to the recommendations in the report the CCA indicated the following: In relation to recommendation 2 The plan and the check list of inspection BIPs have been updated and approved by the Order No. T1-22 of Border and Transport State Veterinary Service of 22 February Concerning the second indent of the updated manual for veterinary checks at BIPs for live animals, it is prepared and delivered to the BIPs. In relation to recommendation 4 The first indent of Supervision of the BIPs is fully rectified. By Order No. B1-150 of Director of State Food and Veterinary Service of 21 February 2006 the training plan for 2006 was approved. On 7 March 2006, Twinning project Strengthening of the border veterinary control system in the Republic of Lithuania (LT/2002/AG/03) has started. One of the goals of this project is to organize trainings for all staff of BIPs in order to update the knowledge of the veterinarians, which have to make decisions on the products and live animals introduced into Republic of Lithuania. One veterinary inspector in Vilnius airport BIP was employed on 10 April 2006 to perform adequate control of travellers luggage. In relation to recommendation 5 On the basis of co-operation agreement between customs and veterinary authorities of Republic of Lithuania, the working group on communication with Customs and clarification of possibilities to share information through the linked databases of veterinary authorities and customs authorities, has been set up. The Transition facility supply project Strengthening of the border veterinary control system in the Republic of Lithuania is planned to start in 2006, the main objective of which is to link the databases used by customs and veterinary services. The specifications for the Transition facility project will be prepared with support of Twinning project Strengthening of the border veterinary control system in the Republic of Lithuania (LT/2002/AG/03). State Food and Veterinary Service organizes the meetings with customs authorities on strengthening of controls and co-operation as well as for implementation of Regulations (EC) 745/2004 and 998/2003 at least once per quarter. We have taken into consideration that all joint meetings need to be formalized and protocols/minutes should be written and signed. In relation to recommendation 6 To rectify the situation on tracing of products in customs warehouses, the State Food and Veterinary Service has informed the territorial State Food and Veterinary Services and Border and Transport State Veterinary Service that all pallets have to be marked with the number of Common Entry Veterinary Document as it is required by the Commission Decision 2000/571/EC. The persons responsible for the customs warehouses have to mark each unit (pallet) as required under legislation. In order to receive confirmation that transit consignments have left the EU border from the exit BIPs, several times we have contacted the customs authorities of Republic of Lithuania as well as the competent veterinary authorities of Republic of Latvia and Republic of Poland. After investigations, the confirmations on exit of consignments from all above mentioned authorities were received. 15