FINAL REPORT OF A MISSION TO PORTUGAL FROM 13 TO 24 NOVEMBER 2000 CONCERNING BORDER INSPECTION POSTS

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin DG(SANCO)/1266/2000-MR Final FINAL REPORT OF A MISSION TO PORTUGAL FROM 13 TO 24 NOVEMBER 2000 CONCERNING BORDER INSPECTION POSTS Please note that certain changes have been made to the draft report in response to comments from the Portuguese Authority. These have been included in the text of the report or as footnotes in bold, italic type. 30/04/

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AIM OF THE MISSION LEGAL BASIS BACKGROUND OBSERVATIONS PRELIMINARY INFORMATION GENERAL FINDINGS MAIN FINDINGS FOR EACH BIP CONCLUSIONS GENERAL FINDINGS VETERINARY STAFF FACILITIES EQUIPMENT HYGIENE DOCUMENTATION REGISTRATION IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF CONSIGNMENTS PROCEDURES FREE ZONE, FREE AND CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES, SHIP SUPPLIERS TRANSIT AND TRANSHIPMENT KITCHEN WASTE FEES OVERALL ASSESSMENT CLOSING MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS TO PORTUGAL TO THE COMMISSION ADDENDUM TO MISSION REPORT DG(SANCO)/1266/ Legenda (abbreviations as laid down in Commission Decision 97/778/EC): Products fit for human consumption HC Products not fit for human consumption NHC No temperature requirements -NT Frozen/chilled products -T Packed products only (2) Fishery products only (3) Live animals: ungulates (cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, solipeds) U Live animals: registered equidae (as defined in Council Directive 90/426/EEC) E Live animals: other animals O Special terms: Manifest: Annex B: Decision on the consignment: List of consignments arriving in the port or airport of destination. Annex B to Commission Decision 93/13/EEC used by the importer to notify consignments. The official veterinarian completes the Annex B. The decision made by the official veterinarian at the BIP and entered on the Annex B or the Border Crossing Certificate, as to the outcome of veterinary checks and the resulting fate of consignments. Page 2 of 27

3 1. INTRODUCTION The mission to Portugal took place from 13 to 24 November The mission team comprised four inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office (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 Direcção Geral de Veterinária which is the central competent authority (CCA). An opening meeting was held on 13 November 2000 with representatives from CCA. At this meeting, the inspection team confirmed the objectives of, and itinerary for, the mission and additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the mission was requested. A closing meeting was held on 24 November with representatives from CCA. An opening meeting and closing meeting were also held at each border inspection post visited. 2. AIM OF THE MISSION Each year approved border inspection posts listed in the Annex of Commission Decision 97/778/EC 1 have to be inspected and in particular the infrastructure, equipment and working practices of the border inspection posts (BIPs). By way of derogation, the frequency of visits for certain approved border inspection posts might be reduced. However, such border inspection posts shall be visited at least every three years. The mission was carried out in order to inspect 12 BIPs (see table in point 4). 3. LEGAL BASIS The mission was carried out under the provisions of Community legislation and in particular: - Council Directive 97/78/EC 2 of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, and in particular Article 6 and 23; - Council Directive 91/496/EEC 3 of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC, and in particular Article 6 and 19; - Commission Decision 97/778/EC of 22 July 1997 drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries; laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the experts of the Commission and repealing Decision 96/742/EC; 1 OJ L 315, , pp OJ L 24, , pp OJ L 268, , pp Page 3 of 27

4 - Council Directive 96/43/EC 4 amending and consolidating Council Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, and in particular Article 6 of Council Directive 85/73/EEC; - Commission Decision 98/139/EC 5 of 4 February 1998 laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States. 4. BACKGROUND Twelve of the 18 approved BIPs in Portugal were visited. Last visits of those BIPs were during 1996, 1997 and The table below gives an indication about the type and approval of each BIP visited, the number of consignments that arrived in 1999, the last visit and the number of the document in which the results of the last inspection to these BIPs are given. Region BIP Type Approval 1 Number of consignments in 1999 Entre Douro e Minho Ribatejo e Oeste Algarve Ribatejo e Oeste Ribatejo e Oeste Acores Madeira Porto Porto Setubal Faro Lisboa Lisboa Ponta Delgada Ponta Delgada Horta Praia da Vitoria Funchal Funchal Airport Port Port Airport Airport Port Airport Port Port Port Airport Port HC, NHC, O HC, NHC HC (2), NHC HC (2), O HC, NHC, U, E, O HC, NHC HC, NHC HC, NHC HC-T (3) HC, NHC, U, E O HC, NHC Last visit 12/ / / / / / / / / / / /1996 Last report XXIV/1498/98 XXIV/1498/98 VI/2074-1/96 VI/2074 2/96 XXIV/2249/97 XXIV/2249/97 VI/2092/96 VI/2092/96 VI/2092/96 VI/2092/96 VI/2092/96 VI/2092/96 1 Based on list of approved Border Inspection Posts listed in Commission Decision 97/778/EC, lastly amended by Commission Decision 2000/714/EC 6 of 7 November 2000 (OJ L 290, , p 38-50). 5. OBSERVATIONS 5.1. Preliminary information The inspection team requested information in advance of the mission from the Portuguese central competent authority. Some of the information was provided in advance, other information at the opening meeting and during the mission. This information has been taken into consideration in writing the report. 4 OJ L 162, , pp OJ L 38, , pp OJ L 290, , pp Page 4 of 27

5 5.2. General findings This chapter contains general findings and general summaries related to the technical areas and further details, which are not mentioned in chapter 5.3.(individual BIP) Organisation of Veterinary administration Border inspection posts are under the direct responsibility of the central competent authority Direcção Geral de Veterinária (DGV) in Lisboa. The DGV is the responsible contact-point for the European Commission for BIP matters and responsible for the transposition of Community law into Portuguese law. It has the role of the implementation of the legislation and supervision of the activities of the BIPs. Four BIPs are directly depending from DGV (Lisboa port and airport and Porto port and airport) also for the personnel employed. The other BIPs are administratively, financially and for the personnel depending from the regional services. In Portugal there are seven regional services, the Divisoes de Intervenção Veterinária, which co-ordinate the veterinary activities and which are also supervising the veterinary activities carried out at local level by the local health Authorities ( Zonas Agrarias ). The SOAL ( Serviços Operativos de Âmbito Local ) represents the local health authority Legislation The transposition of Council Directive 97/78/EC was published in Portugal on 2 September There is no monitoring plan for laboratory tests as foreseen in Annex D of Commission Decision 93/13/EEC Official Journal Notice No 1999/C 356/02 The Notice No 1999/C 356/02 8 lists all places of introduction and export designated by Member States for trade with third countries in accordance with Article VIII (3) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and referred to in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996, on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. The places listed for introduction of protected species of wild fauna and flora and their products in Portugal are not completely in accordance with the BIPs listed for introduction of products of animal origin and live animals. E.g. there is no differentiation in the Notice between the introduction of products or live animals in the approved places, as there is 7 OJ L 9, , pp OJ C 356, , pp Page 5 of 27

6 no differentiation between the places approved for introduction or for export Supervision of the border inspection posts There are no systematic on-site inspections of the facilities, equipment and working procedures in the border inspection posts and no efficient follow up with regard to the deficiencies found during the last inspections by the FVO Co-operation with different authorities Co-operation with customs authorities is not at maximum level as there is no positive list submitted to them and as the customs do not always take an active part in the procedure of selection and identification of consignments. The co-operation with the local authorities as port and airport authorities is not always close enough to ensure that the correct supervision and the overview of the import activities is guaranteed Veterinary staff in the border inspection posts visited Staff in most of the BIPs visited was in general well motivated. Taking into account the number of inspection centres, the distance between them and the obligation of the supervision on the warehouses and shipsuppliers, in some BIPs (in particular Lisboa) the number of veterinary staff was insufficient to properly fulfil all the tasks Training of the veterinary staff in the BIPs The new veterinarians who are employed for the BIPs activities are following a practical experience in the Lisboa BIPs. However, the staff already employed had not received any specific training courses during the last years. No training programmes for 2000 and 2001 for the veterinarians and administrators on BIPs matters were foreseen. In some BIPs staff was better aware of the EC-legislation than in other BIPs but the overall training was insufficient Facilities In relation to the deficiencies mentioned in the previous reports no real improvement was seen concerning the BIP-facilities although correspondence was exchanged on some specific items between the CCA and the FVO (e.g. facilities for ungulates in Lisboa airport). Except Funchal airport, in each BIP major shortcomings were found in relation to the facilities (see tables in point 5.3). In Funchal airport substantial changes were made in the lay out of the BIP without any further notification to the CCA or the Commission Services. Page 6 of 27

7 In Lisboa port new lay outs were presented by the port company without any time-scale for completation of work. For Funchal airport new facilities for the extension of the approval for products were presented, however, the facilities were incomplete and the CCA was not aware of the plans. It was agreed that all projects will be sent to the CCA for their opinion and thereafter forwarded to the FVO office Facilities outside the BIP but used for the BIP On the mainland consignments which do not fulfil the import conditions were destroyed or treated in establishments for high risk material approved under the provisions of Council Directive 90/667/EEC 9 or in incinerators related to laboratories or local slaughterhouses. On the islands of Azores and Madeira such consignments were dumped and covered with soil as no rendering or incineration plants existed Equipment The administrative equipment was complete in Porto port and airport, Setubal and in the main offices of Lisboa port and airport. In all other BIPs visited and in the relevant inspection centres (IC) (e.g. in Lisboa port and airport and Funchal airport) administrative equipment was not in place or largely incomplete (see also tables in point 5.3). In Faro, Ponta Delgada, Horta and Funchal the administrative work of the BIPs was mainly carried out in the offices of the regional veterinary services. In all BIPs visited the technical equipment necessary to carry out the checks on HC-products was basically present but incomplete. (e.g. no sampling containers, ph-meter, scissors, saw, drill, scale, sealing tape). The equipment for the checks of NHC-products was not in place in Porto port and in the inspection centres in Lisboa port and airport. In all the relevant BIPs visited the equipment for the checks of live animals was incomplete (e.g. no equipment for catching the animals, no equipment for blood sampling, no medicaments) or not in place (inspection centre for ungulates in Lisboa airport, Funchal airport) Hygiene Due to the lack of facilities and equipment in all the BIPs visited the hygiene was not satisfactory. With the exception of Setubal general maintenance and cleaning of facilities was not always sufficient in all the BIPs visited, e.g. storage facilities (see also tables in point 5.3). Hygienic equipment such as dispensers for soap or disinfecting fluid or single use hand-towels were not completely available in the inspection rooms of all the BIPs visited. Hot water was not available in the 9 OJ L 363, , pp Page 7 of 27

8 inspection rooms of some BIPs (Porto airport, Lisboa airport, Funchal port) and there was no wash hand basin in Porto airport. In some of the BIPs the facilities were not dedicated solely to the BIP activities (e.g. Porto airport, Faro, Lisboa port and airport) Documentation The system used by the central competent authority, to provide updating of the documentation is basically functioning. In Porto port and Funchal port the documentation was complete and updated. In all other BIPs visited, the documentation was not always updated and/or complete. However the documentation was kept in the office of the regional veterinary services and no or very basic documentation was found in the offices of the BIPs (e.g. Faro, Ponta Delgada port and airport, Horta and Funchal port and airport). There was no documentation in most of the inspection centres in Lisboa port and airport and in Funchal airport Registration Recently a computerised register system was put in place by the central competent authority for the BIPs, which was in accordance with Commission Decisions 97/152/EC 10, 97/394/EC 11 and 97/794/EC 12. It was not yet used in most of the BIPs. In Lisbon port and airport a different and incomplete system was in place. Written registers were still in use in all the BIPs, which differed largely from the necessary data required (e.g. no details about the checks carried out, the decision on the consignment, no address of destination, no ANIMO code of the BIP). In none of the BIPs visited there were records kept on the results of the checks for the destruction of kitchen/galley waste which was already mentioned in the previous reports Identification and selection of the consignments In each BIP an individual system existed to identify and select the consignments. Manifests were available in nearly all port and airport BIPs (except for Faro). The best identification systems, due also to the TSE-supervision, during this mission were in place in Setubal, Ponta Delgada port and airport, Horta, Praia da Vitoria and Funchal port and airport. There was no system in place in Faro where the veterinarians relied on the information received from the importers and customs. A system was in place but it was incomplete in Lisboa port and airport, Porto port and 10 OJ L 59, , pp OJ L 164, , pp OJ L 323, , pp Page 8 of 27

9 airport (e.g. no regular manifest checks, pre-selected manifests received, incomplete positive list). In some BIPs there were no cross checks carried out between the manifests and the notifications or no evidence for them found (e.g. Porto port and airport). Customs did not receive a positive list with the products to undergo the veterinary check regime, however, in the TARIC-Code relevant products were marked with 48. Not all relevant products (e.g , , , , , 3504) were indicated with the mark for the veterinary checks Procedures In all BIPs minor deficiencies in procedures were found due to the lack of training, major deficiencies were found in Porto port and airport, Faro, Lisboa port and airport and Funchal port. In Lisboa port direct landings of fresh fish coming from vessels flying a third country flag were checked in the BIP and an Annex B was issued, although this is not required in Article 1 and 3 of Council Regulation No. 1093/94 13 as already mentioned in the last report Notification of consignments In most of the BIPs visited pre-notification did not always take place as it is foreseen, even for live animals it was not always 24 hours before the arrival. Delays of the notification of the consignments were accepted (up to 16 days after the arrival, e.g. in Porto port). The Annex B was forwarded to the veterinarians, in many cases it was found that the first part had not been completely filled in by the importer (e.g. no or incorrect BIP-name, no or incomplete address of destination, no CN-code, no or incomplete details of the health certificate). The customs destination was sometimes filled in wrongly as a geographical place and not as a customs procedure (e.g. import, transit). If it was recorded as transit, it included also consignments which were destined for the EC but not customs cleared in the BIP of entry or destined for another Member State Documentary check The mission team found the following minor deficiencies: - The definition of consignment was not always respected (e.g. in Porto port and airport, Lisboa port and airport, Ponta Delgada airport and Funchal port). - Incomplete health certificates (no ship name) were accepted. 13 OJ L 121, , pp 3-5 Page 9 of 27

10 - Health certificates with the temperature of fishery products not recorded in accordance with the relevant legislation were accepted (e.g. Ponta Delgada port, Horta, Funchal port). - Annexes B with different handwritings or unauthorised changes were accepted. - Some health certificates with unauthorised or tippexed changes or in a language unknown by the staff (e.g. Russian) were accepted. - In Faro one health certificate was accepted which was not easily readable. - Different addresses of destination in the Annex B than in the health certificate were accepted. - Border Crossing Certificates were issued for family pets accompanying travellers. Major deficiencies were: - Some health certificates accepted were not in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Commission Decisions (e.g. for bristles, hides, raw material and fishery products). - Consignments were accepted without health certificate (Horta) or without the captains declaration (e.g. Porto port). - Health certificates for fishery products coming from freezer vessels, arriving as direct landing, unloaded, stored and reloaded in a third country and the health certificate issued by the regional veterinary services (without references to an approved establishment or cold store) were accepted. - Consignments of fishery products from third countries (Sao Tome and Principe, Guinea Bissau) not listed in the third country list were accepted (e.g. Porto port, Lisboa port). - Health certificates for fishery products (Mozambique) filled in separate pages were accepted (e.g. Lisboa port). - One consignment of fishery products coming from an unapproved establishment (Russia) was accepted (Faro). In the cases where deficiencies in documentary checks were discovered, corrective action was not always taken Identity checks The identity checks were not always properly carried out for example: In some cases the checks were not carried out in the inspection facility of the BIP, e.g. in Porto port, Lisboa port and airport (for E only) and Funchal port. In one case the checks were not carried out (e.g. Porto port) or carried out only on the last part (tail check) of the consignments (e.g. Lisboa port). In the cases where deficiencies in identity checks were discovered, corrective action was not always taken. In two cases (e.g. Ponta Delgada airport) the identity checks were not carried out on the NHC-consignments. Page 10 of 27

11 Physical checks Physical checks were not always carried out in the inspection facilities in Horta, Porto port, Funchal port and Lisboa airport (for U only) or not carried out properly as in IC 2 of Lisboa port. In two cases (e.g. Ponta Delgada airport) the physical checks were not carried out on the NHC-consignments. The frequency of physical checks was not reduced for the relevant products Sampling procedure for laboratory testing There was often no link between the sampling requests or the results of the laboratory tests and the relevant Annexes B. No blood samples for ungulates and equidae were taken. There were no samples for laboratory tests taken on HC-products in Porto airport, Faro and Funchal port. There was no significant level of samples for laboratory tests taken on HC-products in Porto port, Setubal, Lisboa port and airport. In general there were no samples for laboratory tests taken on NHC-products. Where the laboratory tests gave grounds for believing that the veterinary legislation had been seriously infringed (e.g. Lisboa port), laboratory tests were not carried out on the following ten consignments Decision on the consignment A number of minor deficiencies were found in the completion of Annexes B and Border Crossing Certificates: - The Border Crossing Certificates were not always completely filled in, e.g. no ANIMO-Code of the BIP and/or no ANIMO-Code of the animals, no name of the BIP, no complete address of destination and no transport means. - The unused options on the Annex B were not always properly invalidated. - The unused option in point 15 of the Portuguese Border Crossing Certificate was often not invalidated: e.g. for non-harmonised live animals (e.g. ornamental fish, dogs) point 15 a). - Annex B was issued for intra-community trade consignment (Norway) (Porto airport). - In case of rejection the original health certificate was not always invalidated. - A second Annex B was issued for consignments already checked and declared for free use in EC (e.g. Setubal, Lisboa airport and port). - A second Annex B was issued for consignments destined to customs warehouses, which were already checked and declared as non-ecconforming (e.g. Lisboa port and airport and Faro). Page 11 of 27

12 - In case of splitting of consignments the Annex B mother was not kept in the first BIP and the Annexes B daughters did not cover the total amount of the weight declared. Due also to the lack of training a number of major deficiencies were found: - There was no follow up of rejected consignments (e.g. Lisboa airport), destroyed consignments (e.g. Ponta Delgada port) and transformed consignments (e.g. Setubal). - Some consignments were released before laboratory results were received where the tests were carried out on suspicion (e.g. Porto port). - Annex B was issued for a consignment without health certificate (Porto airport). - Consignments of live bivalve molluscs were systematically sent to purification establishments although coming from approved waters and establishments. - In case where high-risk pathogens were detected the consignment was re-despatched and not destroyed. - A second Annex B was issued to declare a consignment for free use in the EC which was already checked and declared not fulfilling the ECrequirements (e.g. Lisboa airport) ANIMO ANIMO-messages were not sent for live animals, for results of laboratory tests, for re-importation or for non-ec-conforming consignments to the BIP of exit. In some BIPs the ANIMO-system runs under the regional identification number and not under the ANIMO-number of the BIP (e.g. Ponta Delgada port and airport, Horta, Praia da Vitoria and Funchal port and airport). No ANIMO message could be received in those BIPs Free zone, free and customs warehouses, ship suppliers There was no list of approved free and customs warehouses or authorised ship suppliers under the veterinary legislation for the receipt of non-ecconforming products. The list of customs warehouses under customs legislation given by the CCA was not updated as some of them were not existing anymore or the name or the address was changed. During the mission four customs warehouses (three of them were caterers) and one ship-supplier, which were under regular veterinary supervision, were visited. In three of them non-ec-conforming consignments were found. In a ship supplier in Lisboa port, two non-ecconforming consignments were found; in two caterers (Lisboa airport and Faro) non-ec-conforming consignments were found which were also processed and delivered to the airlines at the airport. The registers did not contain all the information (e.g. no Annex B number, no third country of origin) and in the storage rooms of the above mentioned premises there was no clear separation between EC-conforming and non-ec-conforming consignments. The non-ec-conforming consignments were not marked on each unit with an unique number corresponding with the Annex B Page 12 of 27

13 number. The document for outgoing Non-EC-conforming consignments was not in accordance with the one foreseen in Commission Decision 2000/571/EC 14. The free zone of Sines was not under veterinary supervision. Non-ECconforming consignments had been released to the free zone of Sines, in which no warehouse was yet approved under veterinary legislation for these consignments. They arrived with an Annex B from another BIP already checked and destined for the free-zone of Sines, however they were completely checked again and a second Annex B was issued Transit and transhipment In the Portuguese BIPs there was not much activity for transhipments in comparison with the trade. Nevertheless some doubts arose concerning the understanding given by the veterinarians and the customs to the transhipment procedure (e.g. Lisboa port). This had a direct implication on the general overview and supervision of the consignments transiting or transhipped which was not completely guaranteed. There was no established system to check the transit consignments in exit in any of the BIPs visited Kitchen waste Although the staff in the BIPs reported that there was a system in place to check the destruction of the products intended for consumption by crew and passengers, on board means of transport operating internationally and their waste, as requested in the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC 15, the official veterinarians at the BIPs visited had no information about the list of the results of these checks Fees Some improvements have been noticed since the previous mission, e.g. the transposition of the relevant legislation. Nevertheless fees for the inspection of the veterinary products and live animals were not collected in some BIPs (e.g. Ponta Delgada port and airport, Horta, Funchal port) Main findings for each BIP Major findings for each BIP are reflected in the tables below, whereas minor findings are in the general part above Porto port Facilities There were no unloading and no storage facilities at different temperatures (ambient, chilled, frozen) for HC-products and no changing room. In consideration of the number of consignments (> 500 each year) no facilities for NHC-products were in place as already mentioned in the previous report. 14 OJ L 240, , pp OJ L 331, , pp Page 13 of 27

14 Hygiene Procedure Due to the lack of facilities and equipment not guaranteed for HC- and NHC-products. Hygienic equipment was incomplete and the inspection room was dirty and not well maintained. Major deficiencies in documentary checks, physical checks and concerning the veterinary decision as referred in point Identity and physical checks were not carried out properly due to the lack of facilities Porto airport Facilities Equipment Hygiene Procedure The administrative office was too small to keep all necessary documentation. Products: no storage room for products at ambient temperature. The storage facilities and toilets were not dedicated solely to the BIP. Live animals: no changing room and shower. The unloading area was not dedicated solely for the BIP activities. Technical equipment for HC-products was not complete and not all in place in the inspection room. Technical equipment for live animals was largely incomplete as already mentioned in the previous report. Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and the equipment. Hygienic equipment was not available in the inspections rooms for products and other animals (e.g. no wash hand basin in inspection room for other animals). Deficiencies in maintenance (e.g. rough concrete floors and walls in the inspection rooms not easy to clean and to disinfect) and cleaning (e.g. storage containers for products and housing facility for animals dirty). Minor deficiencies in documentary, identity and physical checks, major deficiencies concerning the veterinary decision as referred in point Setubal port Facilities Hygiene There was no storage room at ambient temperature. Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and the equipment. In the inspection room there was not all hygienic equipment. Maintenance (e.g. damages of the floor in unloading room) not satisfactory Faro port Facilities Hygiene Registration Identification and selection Procedure The office was too small to keep all necessary documentation. There was no storage room for products at ambient temperature, no changing room and no shower. Unloading area and storage facilities were not solely dedicated to the BIP activities. Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and equipment. In the inspection rooms there was no hygienic equipment. Maintenance and cleaning of storage containers was not satisfactory (e.g. surface and isolating material of doors and walls damaged, floor very dirty, exposed wooden slats in the containers) The computerised register was only partially in use. The written register was largely incomplete and no register for the records on the checks of the destruction of the kitchen waste. Cargo manifests were not received or checked and there was no evidence of pre-notification. No positive list of products and animals, which have to undergo veterinary checks, was given to customs. There was no overview on the incoming consignments. Major deficiencies in documentary check and in relation to the veterinary decision as referred to point No laboratory tests were carried out Lisboa port Staff Facilities The number of veterinarians (nine) related to the number of consignments (ca ), their volume, the number of the inspection centres and their distance from each other, the airport activity, and the other tasks (checks on products of non animal origin, exports and TSE-checks) was not sufficient. As already mentioned in the last two reports: the administrative office was too small, IC 1: no unloading room and no dock shelter for HC-products, no storage rooms for HCproducts at different temperatures (ambient, chilled and frozen), no facilities for NHC-products. IC 2: no unloading room and no storage facilities for HC-products at different temperatures Page 14 of 27

15 Hygiene Identification and selection Procedure (ambient, chilled and frozen), no changing room and no facilities for NHC-products; IC 3: no storage rooms at chilled and ambient temperature, no changing room or lockers, the storage room for frozen products and the unloading area were not clearly dedicated to the BIP; IC 4: unloading area and storage facilities at chilled and frozen temperature were not clearly dedicated to the BIP, no changing room, no storage room at ambient temperature; IC 5: no storage rooms at ambient and chilled temperature and no changing room or lockers. The infrastructures of IC 1 and 2 were still unchanged although new plans should have been submitted already until 1 February In all inspections centres not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and equipment. Maintenance and cleaning in all of the inspection centres was unsatisfactory. Hygienic equipment was not in place in any of the inspection rooms. In the IC 1 there were no lockers for protective clothes in the changing room and no hot water in the inspection room. There was no complete overview on the incoming consignments (import, transit and transhipment). No follow up was carried out for the consignments with unclear information referred on the cargo manifest. Due also to the incomplete information given by customs the veterinarians had no specific overview whether the consignments were unloaded, transhipped or transited. No positive list of products to undergo the veterinary checks had been given to customs. Major deficiencies for documentary, identity and physical checks and in relation to the veterinary decision were found as referred to in point Identity and physical checks due to the insufficient unloading area were not carried out properly in the IC Lisboa airport Staff Facilities Equipment Hygiene Identification and selection Procedure The number of veterinarians (nine) related to the number of consignments (ca ), their volume, their night arrivals, the port activities and the other tasks (checks on products of non animal origin, export and TSE-checks) was not sufficient. Main office too small to keep all the necessary documentation as already mentioned in the previous report. IC 1 (products): there was no ambient temperature storage for HC-products and storage containers for frozen and chilled HC-products were not dedicated to the BIP. There was no changing room and no facilities for NHC-products. (Other animals): there was no housing room. IC 2: There was no changing- room, no crush (as already mentioned by the Commission in the note /DGXXIV/D20889) and no ramp to unload the animals. The access to these facilities was not easy due to the rough dirt road which was uncambered and on which the trucks or vans could not easily drive. IC 1: Technical equipment in the inspection room for HC-products was incomplete (e.g. no thermometer, ph-meter, scale). No technical equipment in place for NHC-products and for other animals. No cages for the housing the small animals. IC 2: There was no administrative and technical equipment. Not satisfactory due to lack of facilities and equipment. IC 1: Maintenance and cleaning not satisfactory (e.g. in storage containers the surface and isolating material of doors and walls damaged and rusty, floor very dirty, untreated wood and no hot water and no disinfecting fluid dispenser in the inspection room for HC-products). In the inspection room for other animals no hot water and no disinfecting fluid dispenser, ceiling damage); IC 2: In all facilities untreated wood was used extensively although the Commission did not approve its use in the previous correspondence ( /DGXXIV/D21250 and /DGXXIV/D20889). Unloading room and troughs were dirty. No hot water and no hygienic equipment in the inspection room. The system in place was not supervised by the BIP or by customs. The airway company did the pre-selection of the cargo manifest. No positive list of products to undergo the veterinary checks had been given to customs. Major deficiencies were found for identity and physical checks as well as for the veterinary decision as referred to in point The identity and physical checks on the ungulates were not carried out in the facilities. Page 15 of 27

16 Ponta Delgada airport Facilities Equipment Hygiene No storage facility for products at ambient temperature and no changing room. Unloading area, storage rooms at frozen and chilled temperature and toilets not solely dedicated to the BIP. Administrative equipment not in place in the BIP as it was kept in the regional office and technical equipment incomplete. Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and equipment. In inspection room no hot water and no hygienic equipment. Deficiencies found in maintenance and cleaning of storage facilities (e.g. broken tiles, parts in untreated wood and very dirty premises) Ponta Delgada port Facilities Hygiene Changes in the layout of facilities were not notified to the Commission. Unloading room without dock shelter (even bulk consignments were received). No storage facilities at chilled and ambient temperature and no changing room. Not satisfactory due to lack of facilities and equipment. There was no hygienic equipment present in the inspection room and in the changing room were no lockers for protective clothes. Maintenance not satisfactory (e.g. in the unloading room wall paint peeling off). Unloading room not easy accessible as cars parked in front of the door Horta port Facilities Equipment Hygiene Administrative office was too small to keep all the necessary documentation. The unloading and storage facilities were not solely dedicated to the BIP and there was no changing room. Administrative equipment was not in place as it was kept in the regional office. Technical equipment was incomplete (e.g. no sampling containers, no seals, no sealing tape). Consignments of frozen fish in bulk were still transported from the wharf to the BIP facilities (1-2 km distance) in open vehicles and not under temperature control, as already mentioned in the last report. There was no hygienic equipment in the inspection room. Maintenance was not satisfactory (some holes in walls of inspection room and office) Praia da Vitoria port Facilities Hygiene No unloading area for products. No storage facilities for chilled products. The storage container for frozen products could not be opened and there was no socket. Facilities for live animals were also used for intra-community trade and for export. Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and the routing of products (cross routing of products and live animals). The hygienic equipment was incomplete and there was no hot water in the inspection room. Maintenance and cleaning not satisfactory (paint peeling off walls and ceiling in inspection room, office, changing room, doors and door-frames of untreated wood, wooden flooring in storage container at ambient temperature. Areas for live animals not cleaned, balances used as crush dirty and one of them with a big hole in the rusty floor) Funchal port Facilities Equipment Hygiene No unloading and no storage facilities at different temperatures (ambient, chilled and frozen) as already stated in the last reports. Administrative equipment not in place as it was kept in the regional office. Technical equipment largely incomplete (e.g. no sampling containers, gloves, scissors, saw, drill, thermometer, ph-meter, seals). Not satisfactory due to the lack of facilities and equipment. No hygienic equipment and no hot water in the inspection room. Maintenance and cleaning not satisfactory (corners between floors and walls not easy to clean and to disinfect, inspection room was dirty, some tiles were Page 16 of 27

17 damaged on the ceiling). Procedures Major deficiencies in documentary and physical check as referred to under point Funchal airport Equipment Administrative equipment incomplete in the BIP (no fax, no copy machine, no ANIMOsystem) as it was kept in the regional office. No technical equipment in place in the BIP. 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1. General findings The absence of a systematic system for the supervision of the facilities, equipment and working procedures in the BIPs resulted in an incomplete overview by the CCA on the situation in the BIPs. The CCA was not always aware of the changes in the lay out of the Portuguese BIPs after their approval. The co-operation and the exchange of information with customs and other authorities, e.g. the port and airport authorities, as foreseen in the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC were not sufficient. As a result the CCA can not completely ensure that the veterinary checks on products and live animals from third countries are carried out in accordance with Council Directives 97/78/EC and 91/496/EEC. The following table presents the conclusions for each BIP, e.g. if there was a compliance, a major or a minor non-compliance with the EClegislation related to the different technical areas. It is meant to be a descriptive summary with regard to the findings (major, minor and compliance) in the different BIPs. Page 17 of 27

18 Border Inspection Post Number of Staff Training of Staff Facilities P LA Equipment Hygiene Documentation Registration Identification/ Selection Procedures Porto-port m m M - m M C m m M Porto-airport m m M M M M m m m M Setubal-port m m M - m M m m m m Faro-airport C m M m m M m M M M Lisboa-port M m M - m M m m M M Lisboa-airport M m M M M M m m M M Ponta Delgada-airport C m M - M M m m m m Ponta Delgada-port C m M - m M m m m m Horta-port C m M - M M m m m m Praia da Vitoria-port C m M m m M m m m - Funchal-port C m M - M M C m m M Funchal-airport C m - m M m m m m - M = Major non-compliance m = minor non-compliance C = Compliance - = not applicable P = Products LA = Live animals / = not checked 6.2. Veterinary staff The number of veterinary staff with regard to the number of consignments to be checked and the related tasks was sufficient in seven of the BIPs visited but insufficient in the BIPs of Lisboa port and airport. Satisfactory application of EC-legislation cannot be ensured in these BIPs. The number of staff was not completely sufficient in Porto port and airport in relation to all the tasks in the BIPs and in Setubal for the replacement which was not assured. There was inadequate training for staff in place in all of the BIPs in relation to the veterinary checks Facilities The situation in the Portuguese BIPs visited showed no real improvement since the last visits. Not all the necessary facilities for inspection and storage of products or the inspection and housing of live animals were Page 18 of 27

19 available. The facilities in these BIPs therefore were not in accordance with the requirements for the clearance of products laid down in Article 6 and Annex II of Directive 97/78/EC and Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC or with the requirements for the control of live animals laid down in Article 6 and Annex A of Directive 91/496/EEC. The Commission was not always informed about the changes which have been made, which is not in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC Equipment Administrative equipment was complete in only three BIPs. In the other BIPs and in the offices of inspection centres administrative equipment was either not in place or highly incomplete. Technical equipment for the products was either not complete in the inspection rooms in all the BIPs or not in place (Porto port and Lisboa port inspection centres and airport) although it was already mentioned as a deficiency in the last report in some BIPs (e.g. Porto airport) and thus not in accordance with the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC. Technical equipment for the checks of live animals was either incomplete in all the relevant BIPs visited or not in place (e.g. Lisboa airport, Funchal airport) and thus not in accordance with the Annex of the Council Directive 91/496/EC Hygiene Due to the lack of technical equipment on the spot, deficiencies in maintenance and cleaning of the facilities, the use of some facilities for other purposes and the lack of other or part of the facilities, the hygiene standard could not meet the requirements laid down in Annex II of Council Directive 97/78/EC, in the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC and in Annex A to Council Directive 91/496/EEC. In Horta consignments of frozen fish in bulk were transported from the quay to the BIP facilities in open vehicles and not under temperature control, as already mentioned in the last report, which is not in accordance with the requirements laid down in Annex of Council Directive 91/493/EEC Documentation The documentation was in most of the BIPs nearly complete, except in Porto port where it was complete and updated and in Funchal port where it was complete and updated but not present in the office of the IC. In the other BIPs visited it was mostly not updated enough or not present in the inspection centres to be in accordance with the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC. 16 OJ L 268, , pp Page 19 of 27

20 6.7. Registration The new computerised system had started to be used. When it will replace completely the written system the standard data requirements requested in European Legislation (Commission Decisions 97/152/EC 97/394/ECand 97/794/EC) will be fully complied with. This will also have implications for an easier traceability and monitoring of consignments and the rapid exchange of information. Nevertheless in two BIPs this change was not yet foreseen. The old systems for registration were not complete or easy to handle. In none of the BIPs visited were records kept on the results of checks for the destruction of kitchen waste which is not in accordance with the Annex of Commission Decision 92/525/EEC Identification and selection of consignments The official veterinarians in most of the BIPs visited did not always have a complete overview of which consignments are arriving, have arrived or are in transit or transhipment procedure in their posts. The overview was quite good in some BIPs due to the system put in place for the TSEcontrol. A system to identify and select consignments had been put in place by the official veterinarians in most of the BIPs. However, the systems were not complete (e.g. no positive list sent to customs) or supervised by the official veterinarians of the BIPs partly because of the lack of personnel and the lack of co-ordination with customs Procedures In Porto port and Lisboa port consignments of fishery products coming from unauthorised third countries were accepted which is not in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Decision 97/296/EC 17. In Faro one consignment of fishery products coming from an unapproved establishment was accepted which is not in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive 91/493/EEC and with Article 2 of the Commission Decision 97/102/EC 18. In Lisboa port consignments directly landed of fresh fish from third country fishing vessels were checked which is not in accordance with Article 1 and 3 of Council Regulation No. 1093/94. In some of the BIPs fishery products coming from third countries with an incomplete health certificate which was not referring to an approved establishment or cold store were accepted which is not in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive 91/493/EEC and 17 OJ L 122, , pp OJ L 35, , pp Page 20 of 27

21 with the relevant Commission Decisions of the countries allowed to export fishery products toward EC. In some of the BIPs notifications of consignments of products and in some cases notifications of consignments of live animals were not received as requested in Article 3 of Council Directive 97/78/EC, Article 1 of Commission Decision 93/13/EEC and in Article 3 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC. Health certificates for fishery products (Mozambique) filled in more separate pages were accepted which is not in accordance with Article 1 of the Commission Decision 95/328/EC 19. The definition of consignment was not always applied for products in accordance with Article 2 of Council Directive 97/78/EC and for live animals with Article 2 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC. A Border Crossing Certificate was issued for family pets accompanying travellers which is not in accordance with Article 1 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC. Documentary checks were not always carried out in accordance with the requirements for products laid down in Articles 4 and 7 of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Article 1 and Annex A of Commission Decision 93/13/EEC and for live animals in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC and Annex I of Commission Decision 97/794/EC. Identity and physical checks were not always carried out in accordance with the requirements for products laid down in Articles 4, 7 and 11 and Annex III of Council Directive 97/78/EC. The frequency of physical checks was not reduced, which is not in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 10 of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision 94/360/EC 20. Identity and physical checks for live animals were not always carried out in accordance with Article 4 and 8 of Council Directive 91/496/EEC and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 97/794/EC. In cases where deficiencies were detected during the veterinary checks, corrective action was not always taken or the follow up was missing. No blood samples were taken from ungulates and equidae as foreseen in Article 4 of Commission Decision 97/794/EC: 19 OJ L 191, , pp OJ L 158, , pp Page 21 of 27