Final report. EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY. 19 to 23 March concerning import controls and border inspection posts

Transcription

1 Case No: Event No: Final report EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY 19 to 23 March 2007 concerning import controls and border inspection posts Please note that corrections to the factual content of the report have been included in the body of the report in underlined italic print and the comments from Norwegian Food Safety Authority to the draft report and information on corrective actions already taken are in Annex 3. The comments are referred to in footnotes in underlined italic print. Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0) , fax: (+32)(0) ,

2 Page 2 Contents Page 1 Introduction Objectives of the mission Legal basis for the mission National legislation Previous missions Main findings Structure and organisation Supervision of the border inspection posts Training of staff Co-operation with other authorities, identification and selection of consignments Procedures at the visited BIPs Notification of consignments Veterinary checks Decisions on consignments Supervision of disposal of galley waste Supervision of transhipment Supervision of consignments not meeting EEA requirements and consignments in transit Inspection fees Facilities Equipment Hygiene Records Documentation Illegal import Import for personal consumption and imports of pet animals accompanying travellers Control of mail arriving from third countries Final meeting Additional information provided by the Norwegian Competent Authority Conclusions Overall conclusion Supervision of the border inspection posts visited Co-operation with other authorities, identification and selection of consignments Procedures Notification of consignments Veterinary checks Decisions on consignments Supervision of consignments not meeting EEA requirements and transit Facilities Hygiene Records Recommendations to the Norwegian Competent Authority Annex List of abbreviations and terms used in the report Product categories Annex 2 Other relevant legislation Annex 3 The Norwegian Food Safety Authority s comments on the draft report... 25

3 Page 3 1 Introduction The mission took place in Norway from 19 to 23 March The mission team comprised two inspectors from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (the Authority). The opening meeting was held on Monday 19 March 2007 at Gardermoen Airport with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the head office of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), the National Fish and Seafood Centre of the NFSA, and representatives of the Norwegian Customs and Excise. At the meeting the mission team confirmed the objectives and the amended itinerary of the mission, and the representatives of the NFSA provided additional information to that set out in the Norwegian reply to the Authority's pre-mission questionnaire. Throughout the mission the Deputy Director General of the NFSA and a representative of the National Fish and Seafood Centre accompanied the mission team. Furthermore, a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food accompanied the mission team during four days. Finally, representatives of the relevant regional offices and district offices of the NFSA participated in the visits to the border inspection posts (BIPs). During the mission five BIPs and an establishment producing products of animal origin under customs control were visited. Furthermore, the mission team had a meeting with the Norwegian Customs and Excise regarding controls on mail arriving from third countries. A final meeting was held at the head office of the NFSA in Oslo on 23 March 2007, at which the mission team presented the main findings and some preliminary conclusions from the mission. The abbreviations used in the report are listed in Annex 1. Table 1 Details about the BIPs visited during the mission Name of the BIP Inspection Approved Categories Last visited Centre Båtsfjord (Port) None HC-T(FR)(1)(2)(3), HC-NT(1)(2)(3) 2004 Kirkenes (Port) None HC-T(FR)(1)(2)(3) 2004 Storskog (Road) None HC, NHC 2004 Oslo (Airport) None HC, NHC 2004 Vadsø (Port) None HC-T(FR)(1)(2)(3) Objectives of the mission The main objective of the mission was to evaluate the Norwegian system for veterinary checks on live animals and products of animal origin entering the EEA from third countries and to revisit in this respect five approved BIPs. A particular focus was therefore put on the NFSA s application of the Norwegian measures implementing the rules laid down in the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement), and in particular those in Point and Point of Part I of Chapter I of Annex I thereof and other relevant EEA legislation in the field of veterinary import control.

4 Page 4 In order to fulfil the scope of the mission, the mission team assessed the infrastructure, equipment and working procedures in Norwegian BIPs and followed-up corrective action taken in response to previous BIP missions carried out by the Authority, in particular to the mission undertaken in September 2004 and August The mission team evaluated measures taken by the NFSA to detect illegal imports of products of animal origin and live animals. Furthermore, the mission team gathered information on the rules applicable to control of mail arriving from third countries which could possibly contain live animals or products of animal origin. 3 Legal basis for the mission The legal basis for the mission was: a) Point 4 of the Introductory Part of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement). b) Article 1(e) of Protocol 1 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (Surveillance and Court Agreement). c) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 98/139/EC 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 Sates. d) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement, in particular Article 23 (1)(b) thereof. e) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 91/496/EEC 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, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement, in particular Article 19 thereof. f) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 2001/881/EC of 7 December 2001 drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on animals and animal products from third countries and updating the detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the experts of the Commission, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement.

5 Page 5 g) The Act referred to at Point 5.1.6a of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 2002/99/EC of 7 December 2002 laying down the animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption. Other legislation relevant for the mission is listed in Annex 2. 4 National legislation The main Norwegian Act creating the general framework for the functioning of the NFSA is Act No 124 of 19 December 2003 relating to food safety and plant and animal health (the Food Act). The Food Act also provides the legal basis for regulations in the field of veterinary import control adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Care Services. The following is a list of the main Norwegian legislation implementing EEA Acts in the field of veterinary checks on imports from third countries as included in the NFSA s reply to the pre-mission questionnaire: a) Regulation of 18 October 1999 No 1163 relating to inspection and veterinary checks on import and transit of foodstuffs and products of animal origin from third countries (Forskrift av 18. oktober 1999 nr om tilsyn og kontroll ved import og transitt mv. av animalske næringsmidler og produkter av animalsk opprinnelse mv. fra tredjeland. Importforskrift for animalske produkter). b) Regulation of 31 December 1998 No 1484 relating to inspection and veterinary checks on import and export of live animals, ova, embryos and semen or animal waste within the EEA, and to import of live animals from countries outside the EEA (Forskrift av 31. desember 1998 nr om tilsyn og kontroll ved innførsel og utførsel av levende dyr, annet avalsmaterial og animalsk avfall innen EØS, og ved innførsel av levende dyr fra land utenfor EØS (Levendedyrforskriften)). c) Temporary Regulation of 3 January 2001 No 5 relating to the approval of border inspection posts and accompanying inspection centres under the authority of the Food Safety Authority (Midlertidig forskrift av 3. januar 2001 nr. 5 om godkjenning mv. av grensekontrollstasjoner med tilhørende kontrollsentra underlagt Mattilsynets myndighet). d) Regulation of 31 January 2006 No 103 implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 laying down measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption (Forskrift 31. januar 2006 nr. 103 om gjennomføring av forordning (EF) nr. 745/2004 om fastsettelse av tiltak med hensyn til import av produkter av animalsk opprinnelse beregnet på eget forbruk). e) Regulation of 30 November 2005 No 1347 implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 of 22 January 2004 laying down procedures for veterinary checks at border inspection posts in EEA on products imported from third countries (Forskrift 31. januar 2006 nr. 103 om gjennomføring av

6 Page 6 forordning (EF) nr. 136/2004 av 22. Januar 2004 om fastsettelse av fremgangsmåtene for veterinærkontroller ved EØS grensekontrollstasjoner ved import av produkter fra tredjestater). f) Council Directive 2002/99/EC has been implemented by Forskrift 9. september 2005 nr om generelle dyrehelsemessige betingelser for produksjon, bearbeiding, omsetning og import fra tredjeland av næringsmidler av animalsk opprinnelse til konsum, which entered into force on 9 September Previous missions In 2004 and 2005 the Authority visited all Norwegian BIPs and most of the Inspection Centres (ICs). In the autumn of 2006, the Authority started a new series of inspections of the BIPs in Norway. The final reports from the missions are available on the Authority s homepage: In the report from the mission in 2004, which covered all BIPs visited during this mission, the Authority concluded, inter alia, regarding supervision of the BIPs visited that it was not in accordance with Commission Decision 2000/208/EC, in particular Articles 1 and 2, that the Central Competent Authority accepted non-conform consignments to be transited via BIPs not approved, staffed and equipped for the products 1. For the staff at the BIPs visited it was, inter alia, concluded that full compliance with Article 6(3) and Annex A(3) of Council Directive 91/496/EEC and Annex II of Council Directive 97/78/EC could not be ensured since certain deficiencies in the supervision (e.g. identification and selection of consignments) occurred due to lack of staff. The Authority also concluded in the report from the mission in 2004 that, for identification and selection of consignments, it could still not be ensured that the BIPs received from other authorities (in particular the Customs and Excise) all relevant information. With regard to laboratory checks it was concluded in the 2004 report that an annual national monitoring plan for sampling at BIPs was not available. Furthermore, regarding decisions on consignments, in particular veterinary checks at the place of exit of goods in transit, it was concluded that it was not in accordance with Article 19(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC that fish inspectors decided on products other than fishery products. Finally, with regard to facilities it was, inter alia, concluded that it was not in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC that the social rooms in the BIP Kirkenes were shared with personnel not involved in official controls 2. It was also concluded that the Central Competent Authority s approval of the BIP Kirkenes for import of packed fish meal was not in accordance with, in particular, Articles 1(1), 4(2)(e) and 4(3) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. In its report from the mission in 2006 the Authority concluded that, with regard to the supervision of BIPs, it could not be ensured that animal health rules were fulfilled with 1 See information from the NFSA on corrective action taken in Annex 3 point 5. 2 See information from the NFSA on corrective action taken in Annex 3 point 5.

7 Page 7 respect to consignments in transit and for consignments for direct supply of cross border means of sea transport for the purposes of consumption by staff and passengers. Furthermore, in that report it was also concluded that, as no guidelines were available in relation to customs procedures/definitions, compliance with Articles 8(4), 11(1)(c) and 12(8) of Council Directive 97/78/EC could not be ensured. Finally, it was concluded that full compliance with Council Directive 97/78/EC, and in particular Article 3(2) thereof could not be ensured since some consignments were imported via non-bip entry points. 6 Main findings 6.1 Structure and organisation 3 The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Care Services are responsible for the food safety and quality legislation. The Ministries are responsible for national legislation concerning veterinary import control of products of animal origin and live animals. Section 23 of the Food Act of 19 December 2003 delegates the competence to administer national legislation regarding veterinary import control, including control of import of products of animal origin for private consumption and pets accompanying travellers, to the NFSA. Accordingly, the NFSA established on 1 January 2004 is the competent authority. The NFSA comprises a head office located in Oslo, eight regional offices and 63 district offices. The head office is responsible for co-ordinating the organisation s activities including, inter alia, inspections, control of imports, seizure of products and preparation of new legislation. Out of a total of 1300 employees approximately 130 employees work at the NFSA s head office, of which two deal with veterinary import control, 230 are employed at the regional offices, and 940 are employed at the district offices. The NFSA drafts instructions and administrative provisions with regard to veterinary import control. Within the NFSA administrative decisions are adopted by the district offices. Any appeal following these decisions is considered by the regional offices. Five national centres, having been assigned special tasks, are located at different regional offices. The national centres have no legal powers and take instructions from the head office. They are, however, administratively organised under the respective regional office. The National Fish and Seafood Centre is located at the regional office in Bergen. The NFSA stated in its reply to the pre-mission questionnaire that the National Fish and Seafood Centre provides technical and administrative support to the NFSA at all levels and that it currently has four employees dealing with veterinary import control. The mission team noted that the National Fish and Seafood Centre had an active role with regard to veterinary import control. In the answer to the pre-mission questionnaire the NFSA informed the Authority that the national centre in Ås currently has five employees dealing with data systems related to veterinary border control, including the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES). 3 See information on changes in the organization of the NFSA and personnel working with import controls and withdrawal of national approval for fish meal in point 6.1 of Annex 3.

8 Page 8 The mission team received information from representatives of the regional offices that they act as a level of appeal but are not involved in the approval of BIPs or the daily supervision of BIPs. The mission team noted that, at BIP Kirkenes, imports of products not falling within the product category for which the BIP was approved, were allowed imported. The Authority concluded on this issue in its 2004 report. However, the import of fish meal continued until 23 March 2007 (see Chapter 8). In addition, the district office accepted imports of another product (canned cod liver), although the BIP Kirkenes was neither approved nor equipped for the control of such products. 6.2 Supervision of the border inspection posts The mission team noted that no guidelines were issued on how the BIPs were to administer the customs procedures/definitions referred to in the EEA legislation on veterinary import controls, in particular, as the European Community s Customs legislation is not applicable to Norway. This observation was also made by the mission team in the mission in Commission Decision 2000/571/EC on supply to cross border means of sea transport was still not transposed into Norwegian legislation. The same situation was described in the 2006 report. Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and of the NFSA informed the mission team in the opening meeting that transposition of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC was expected to take place by the end of March Additional information was submitted to the Authority while drafting the report that transposition of the Decision had taken place (see Chapter 8). The mission team observed that a BIP received consignments which were considered as ship provisions but without applying the procedures set out in Commission Decision 2000/571/EC. There was no evidence of supervision carried out to ensure that such consignments were accompanied by the documents required in Article 13 of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC, and that they were delivered directly to a cross border means of sea transport or a warehouse as referred to in Article 13 of Council Directive 97/78/EC. Goods were accepted for transit procedure without any veterinary certificate demonstrating that these goods fulfilled the animal health requirements. The mission team noted during this mission the same situation as was observed in the 2006 mission that, according to section 15 of the Norwegian regulation of 18 October 1999 No 1163 relating to inspection and veterinary checks on import and transit of foodstuffs and products of animal origin from third countries, consignments from third countries can after veterinary border control be stored in a customs warehouse or free zone provided that the NFSA is notified in advance on the first page of the Common Veterinary Entry Document (CVED) that the consignment s final destination is the internal market (free circulation within the EEA). In addition, the products must fulfil the import requirements. Consignments not fulfilling the requirements for import into the EEA must not be stored in customs warehouses or free zones. During this mission an establishment processing under customs control was inspected by the mission team. The establishment was under the supervision of the NFSA s district office. Representatives of the district

9 Page 9 office stated that they had not received any guidelines from the head office on whether particular issues should be checked in this type of establishment 4. Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that only the head office can propose BIPs and ICs for approval by the Authority and suspend approval of BIPs and ICs. The mission team noted that an establishment in Vardø was regarded as an IC by the personnel of the BIP Vadsø, although the IC has not been approved by the Authority. The Authority concluded on this issue during the missions in 2004 and However, this had not been identified in the inspection carried out by the National Fish and Seafood Centre in June The representatives of the BIP Vadsø informed the mission team that the local approval would be withdrawn in the week following the inspection (see Chapter 8), which was confirmed by the National Fish and Seafood Centre. The mission team noted that the BIP Kirkenes had been granted a national approval for the product category fish meal for non-human consumption. The Authority has not granted the BIP Kirkenes approval for this product category. Following the BIP mission in 2004, the Authority set 2 August 2005 as the final date for the NFSA to withdraw its approval of the BIP Kirkenes for this category of products. The mission team noted that on 27 January 2006 the district office sent a letter to the establishment hosting the BIP announcing a decision to withdraw the nationally granted approval. The establishment neither commented on nor objected to the decision. However, the district office took on 15 February 2006 the decision not to withdraw the approval, as announced, but gave the establishment a new timeframe until 1 June 2006 to establish the additional facilities required. The establishment did not respond and did not establish the facilities within the given deadline. On 2 August 2006 the district office sent a letter requesting the head office of NFSA to withdraw the approval of the BIP Kirkenes immediately. The mission team did not receive any evidence during the mission that the head office of NFSA had withdrawn the approval. Additional information was submitted to the Authority while drafting the report that the NFSA had withdrawn its approval (see Chapter 8). The mission team noted that, apart from the BIP Oslo Airport, all BIPs visited during this mission had been inspected by the National Fish and Seafood Centre in the last year. However, the inspection reports from these inspections did not reveal some of the deficiencies noted by the Authority s mission team, e.g. that the BIP Kirkenes received products for human and non-human consumption under ambient temperature, products of categories the BIP was not approved for (see Chapter 6.1). In the 2004 and 2006 mission reports it was noted that BIPs received imports of products falling within categories they were not approved for, based on derogations granted by the district offices. During this mission, the personnel of the BIP Kirkenes stated that products for human consumption to be stored at ambient temperature (HC-NT) are no longer accepted at this BIP, and are instead directed to the BIP Båtsfjord which is approved for HC-NT consignments. The personnel of the BIP Kirkenes informed the mission team that a request to approve the BIP for fishery products for human consumption under ambient temperature had been submitted to the National Fish and Seafood Centre. A representative of the National Fish and Seafood Centre informed the mission team that a circular letter from the Directorate of Fisheries (the former competent authority) instructed 4 See additional information from the NFSA on the subject in point 6.2 of Annex 3.

10 Page 10 the personnel of the BIPs to accept processed fishery products from factory vessels (e.g. cooked frozen King crabs) with a Captain s Declaration. The personnel of the BIP Kirkenes informed the mission team that they did not have sufficient staff resources to supervise goods in transit and ship provisions to ensure that these goods leave Norway. This was also observed in the mission in However, the mission team took note that the district office was now in the process of recruiting an additional veterinarian. The representatives of the NFSA stated that the NFSA is currently working on a central electronic database, which will also contain information about supervision of BIPs. 6.3 Training of staff 5 The mission team observed that a training programme for the BIPs was established and applied. The training programme consists of basic training for newly recruited staff, refresher training and gatherings. The NFSA stated in the reply to the pre-mission questionnaire that during a two day seminar for BIP personnel held in December 2006, the issue of the derogations granted by the district offices and its possible conflict with Norway s obligations arising from the EEA Agreement was discussed. The representatives of the district office supervising the establishment producing under custom s supervision informed the mission team that there had been no particular training provided to supervise such an establishment. As there is no BIP in the district, the staff was not invited to the BIP training courses provided by NFSA. The personnel involved in supervision of the establishment expressed to the mission team their opinion that there was a need for such training e.g. in the framework of the training provided to staff at the BIPs. The mission team observed that training related to veterinary border control had been provided also to the staff of the regional offices of the NFSA, which is the level of appeal. Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that the NFSA intends providing additional specific training to district offices not having BIPs but involved in the prevention of illegal imports and to offer training to the customs. 6.4 Co-operation with other authorities, identification and selection of consignments Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 requires that the Official Veterinarians (OVs) must co-ordinate with other enforcement services to gather all pertinent intelligence regarding introduction of products of animal origin. For that purpose, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 requires that the competent authority must have access to the databases, or relevant parts thereof, available to the customs services. As mentioned in the report from the mission in 2005, the NFSA s head office signed on 20 May 2005 an agreement on co-operation and exchange of information with the Norwegian Customs and Excise. Based on this agreement a working group was established. The representatives of the NFSA stated that the working group meets regularly. The mission team was informed by a representative of the NFSA that, as a consequence of this work, the NFSA will gain access to the Customs Excise s database in 2008, when a revision of the database is expected to be finalised. Furthermore, 5 See additional information from the NFSA in point 6.3 of Annex 3.

11 Page 11 intensified co-operation is planned for the control of personal luggage arriving from third countries. TRACES is used by the importers to provide the BIPs with the pre-notifications of consignments. An improvement was noted since the last mission as the mission team did not note any instances of delayed pre-notifications. In the missions in 2005 and 2006, the Authority s inspectors observed that the BIPs visited did not receive any information, e.g. cargo manifests, from the Norwegian Customs and Excise, and the BIPs did not have access to the relevant parts of the Customs and Excise s data system. In this mission the mission team observed improvements in the co-operation with the customs authority. In particular, the four BIPs in northern Norway received cargo manifests from the customs authority. At the BIP Oslo airport, the BIP staff was aware that the information currently received could neither serve to identify transit and transhipments, nor to cross-check the information received from the importers or their agents. The BIP did not receive any cargo manifests from the customs and the access to the database of the main cargo company could not be used due to lack of resources. 6.5 Procedures at the visited BIPs As also observed at the BIPs visited in 2004, 2005 and 2006, the veterinary certificate referred to in the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/571/EC was not in use as the Decision was still not transposed into Norwegian legislation. Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and of the NFSA informed the mission team in the opening meeting that transposition of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC was expected to take place by the end of March Additional information was submitted to the Authority while drafting the report that transposition of the Decision had taken place (see Chapter 8) Notification of consignments 6 The mission team observed that by using the CVEDs and electronic notifications the procedures for the notification of consignments had improved. Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that the district office in Oslo provides a service (TRACES on-line support) to importers assisting them in filling-in the CVED electronically. However, the first page of the CVED was still not always filled-in correctly. This confirms the findings in the missions carried out in 2004, 2005 and In particular the delivery address (box 8) and the designated procedure (boxes 8, 17, 18, and 22) did not always correspond. This created an obstacle to the automatic functions in the TRACES system Veterinary checks 7 Regarding documentary checks, the mission team observed that Captain s Declarations were accepted for processed fishery products such as cooked frozen King crabs. The mission team observed that the identity checks were performed as described in the legislation. 6 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point of Annex 3. 7 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point of Annex 3.

12 Page 12 With regard to physical checks an improvement was observed since the 2006 mission as the requirement of Article 24(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, calling for intensified checks of the 10 following consignments in case of serious or repeated infringements of the EEA veterinary legislation, has been implemented into Norwegian legislation (Article 19 of Regulation No 1163). However, it was still not mentioned in the Norwegian legislation that 10 favourable results of laboratory checks have to be available before lifting the re-enforced test regime. The mission team observed that there was still no monitoring sampling plan for BIPs as required in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 with regard to the detection of residues, pathogens or other substances dangerous to humans, animals or the environment in products from third countries. The mission team was informed by the representatives of the NFSA that the NFSA was about to circulate a sampling plan for the BIPs (see further Chapter 8) Decisions on consignments 8 The mission team observed at the BIP Båtsfjord, one incidence where the 60 days time limit to exit rejected consignments was not respected, as the BIP granted additional four weeks to exit the consignment. At the BIP Vadsø the mission team observed the following regarding the follow-up of rejected consignments: - No documentation was available on the destination of one rejected consignment. - Another rejected consignment went to the BIP Måløy. The arrival of the consignment at the BIP Måløy was not followed up nor whether it left Norway. - One consignment was planned to be sent from Vadsø via Ålesund to Rotterdam. There was no follow-up on if it arrived at the BIP Ålesund and if it left Norway. The mission team still observed that staff at the BIPs decided that consignments were destined directly for a cross-border means of sea transport (Box 34 of the CVED), when they had been notified by the person responsible for the load that the delivery address was a Norwegian warehouse (Box 8 of the CVED). It could still not be demonstrated to the mission team that the BIPs received and checked veterinary documentation certifying that consignments destined for a third country either following immediate transit or after storage in accordance with Articles 12(4) and 13 of Directive 97/78/EC fulfilled, in particular, the animal health requirements. As also observed at the BIPs visited in 2004, 2005 and 2006, it could still not be demonstrated by the staff at the BIPs that, when releasing channelled and transited consignments, it had received sufficient guarantees for the Norwegian Customs and Excise s application of the supervisory procedures laid down in Council Directive 97/78/EC. 6.6 Supervision of disposal of galley waste All BIPs had locally developed procedures in place to cater for the disposal of galley waste. Representatives of the regional office in Troms and Finmark informed the mission team that it had started a general project on waste, including possible future acceptance of 8 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point of Annex 3.

13 Page 13 galley waste. The personnel of the BIPs stated that due to costs of destruction no galley waste had been unloaded. 6.7 Supervision of transhipment The mission team observed in one of the BIPs visited that the local customs authority had not forwarded all necessary information on arriving consignments to the BIP. The possibility for the BIP to undertake cross-checks to ensure that all relevant consignments were presented at the BIP, was therefore still limited. Furthermore, insufficient information from the customs authority also made it difficult for staff at that BIP to monitor the time periods referred to in Commission Decision 2000/25/EC. According to the personnel of the BIP the supervision of transhipments was deficient due to a lack of information and staff. 6.8 Supervision of consignments not meeting EEA requirements and consignments in transit The mission team observed that consignments were still transited via Norway without any documentation on their animal health status and in some instances, without indicating the country of origin. Representatives of the NFSA have previously, and during this mission, informed the mission teams that all products of animal origin entering Norway from third countries have to comply with the requirements for imports as laid down in the EEA legislation. Therefore, customs warehouses, free zones and free warehouses, as described in Article 12(4) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, have not been approved in Norway. Most of the BIPs visited kept a register to document the exit of consignments in transit. The mission team observed that the CVEDs were not annotated with the words formalities of exit from the EC and checks made of transit goods, confirmed in accordance with Article 11(2)(e) of Directive 97/78/EC by the BIP of exit. It could not be confirmed that two consignments which had arrived in transit at the BIP Vadsø had exited via a BIP. Similar observations were made by the mission team in The mission team observed that the BIP received consignments which were considered as ship provisions but there was no evidence of supervision carried out to ensure that such consignments were accompanied by the documents required under Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC. The exit of some consignments of ship provisions was not documented Inspection fees The mission team observed that procedures for claiming the inspection fees before releasing the consignment were harmonised Facilities In general, the mission team observed an improvement of the facilities for storage of detained consignments, and for the identification of the unloading areas. In particular, at the BIP Båtsfjord, the size of the storage facilities was adequate related to the size of consignments expected and they were effectively kept under the control of the OFI. 9 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point 6.8 of Annex 3.

14 Page 14 At the BIP Kirkenes, the social rooms were not easy to clean and disinfect, and not adequate for the number of staff working/number of consignments received at the BIP (see Chapter 8). As already described in the report from the mission in 2004, it could not be demonstrated to the mission team that all parts of the social rooms were for the use of persons involved in official controls only. At the BIP Vadsø the NFSA had formally requested an improvement of, inter alia, additional storage facilities for keeping detained consignments under the control of the OV, in a letter dated 28 November 2006 with a deadline given of the 6 December A new deadline, 31 January 2007, was given after some correspondence with the establishment hosting the BIP. On 8 March 2007 the NFSA informed the establishment that the approval would be suspended and gave the establishment one week to react. At the time of the mission the approval had not been suspended. After the mission the NFSA informed the mission team of the corrective actions taken (see Chapter 8) Equipment All necessary equipment for the categories the BIPs were approved for was in place in the BIPs visited Hygiene All the BIPs visited had cleaning plans ensuring that all parts of facilities and equipment were subject to regular cleaning. However, the mission team observed some deficient cleaning at the BIP Kirkenes (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, the layout of parts of the facilities at the BIP Kirkenes could not ensure that veterinary checks could be conducted in such a manner as to avoid cross contamination Records 10 TRACES was used for registration of the consignments. However, deficiencies were observed in relation to record keeping concerning follow-up records on goods in transit and ship provisions to be directly delivered to cross border means of sea transport (see 6.8), and lack of records for checks on free zones, free warehouses and customs warehouses as required under Point 5.4 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. These deficiencies had not been followed-up, although they were also addressed in the reports from the missions carried out in 2004, 2005 and At the BIP Oslo airport the mission team was informed that, currently, almost 100% of the consignments underwent physical checks. At the BIP no records on reduced frequency of physical checks were kept. The records for the administration of the enforced physical checks following rejection or messages in RASFF had improved, as a computer-based journal system was established. The NFSA informed that this database will be administered by the NFSA s National Centre of Plants and Vegetables as long as the TRACES system does not cater for such records. Furthermore, a central information system for the BIPs on relevant RASFF messages was in place. 10 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point 6.13 of Annex 3.

15 Page Documentation Although documentation was to a large extent updated, apart from the BIP Vadsø, the BIPs had still no documentation on the Norwegian Customs and Excise s application of the supervisory procedures concerning channelled consignments and consignments in transit. The mission team took note that the NFSA is in the process of creating an electronic centralised system for all mandatory documentation (see Chapter 8) Illegal import The mission team noted that awareness concerning the possibility of illegal imports, and the understanding of the responsibility of the BIPs to prevent such imports, had improved compared to the observations made in the mission in Import for personal consumption and imports of pet animals accompanying travellers The mission team observed that a system to control imports for personal consumption and pets accompanying travellers was under development. However, there were no changes in the system in place since the previous mission. The mission team observed at the BIP Oslo airport, that the number of pets accompanying travellers had increased significantly since the inspection carried out in This was due to Norway s introduction of a pet travel scheme replacing a compulsory quarantine Control of mail arriving from third countries The Norwegian Customs and Excise is the competent authority in Norway for the control of mail arriving from third countries. Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that the NFSA is in the process of evaluating its possible contribution to the system established by the Customs and Excise. 7 Final meeting A final meeting was held on 23 March 2007 at the head office of the NFSA with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the head office and the National Fish and Seafood Centre of the NFSA, and the Norwegian Customs and Excise. At the meeting the mission team presented orally the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the mission. The mission team underlined some major points of concern. Firstly, and the main concern was the introduction of potentially non-eea-conform consignments transiting via Norway. Secondly, the import of third country products falling within categories the BIPs were not approved for. Thirdly, the procedures for the approval and the suspension of approval of ICs and product categories. At the final meeting, the mission team also explained that additional conclusions could be included in the report, based on a more detailed assessment of the information received from Norway. The mission team invited the NFSA to provide relevant information on any corrective action within one week of the final meeting. A representative of the NFSA acknowledged the findings and preliminary conclusions as presented and had no comments.

16 Page 16 8 Additional information provided by the Norwegian Competent Authority After the mission the NFSA submitted to the Authority information on corrective action initiated before the Authority had finalised the draft report from the mission. This information has been taken into consideration for the conclusions and recommendations. The Authority was informed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that the Norwegian regulation transposing Commission Decision 2000/571/EC regarding the direct supply of cross border means of sea transport was adopted on 1 April The Authority received information from the head office of NFSA that on 23 March 2007 the national approval of the BIP Kirkenes for fish meal was withdrawn. The Authority received information from the head office of NFSA that on 30 March 2007 it withdrew the national approval of an Inspection Centre under BIP Vadsø. The Authority received evidence from the National Fish and Seafood Centre that the additional storage facilities for keeping detained consignments under the control of the OV are in place at the BIP Vadsø. Accordingly, the National Fish and Seafood Centre informed the Authority that it had stopped its procedure to suspend the approval of the BIP Vadsø. The BIP Kirkenes informed the Authority that only Captain s Declarations fully completed by the signing Captain would be accepted. Furthermore, the BIP Kirkenes had arranged a temporary solution to forthwith improve the hygiene in the social rooms before finding a satisfactory permanent solution. In the action plan following the report from the mission in 2006 received by the Authority on 27 April 2007, the NFSA provided the following information relevant to this mission: The National Fish and Seafood Centre has prepared a procedure for the entrance- BIP and for the district office/bip where the consignment exit on how to supervise direct supplies to cross border means of sea transport. The NFSA has confirmed that the certificates for products of animal origin for supplies for cross border means of sea transport will be applied. The National Fish and Seafood Centre will evaluate the procedure regarding direct supply of cross border means of sea transport and the implementation of the relevant European legislation. The BIP Oslo airport will be inspected by the National Fish and Seafood Centre in the autumn of 2007, focussing on the procedures for control and follow-up of consignments. An internal team for carrying out audits within the NFSA has been appointed. The audits will commence in the autumn of The head office has delegated the legal power to suspend approval of BIPs and ICs to the National Fish and Seafood Centre in a letter dated 8 March The head office has emphasised the National Fish and Seafood Centre s role in coordinating the BIPs in a letter addressed to the regional offices.

17 Page 17 The documentation necessary for veterinary border control of products of animal origin and live animals is available and updated electronically by the National Fish and Seafood Centre. The date for completion of the monitoring plan for products of animal origin in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 has been set as the 30 May Conclusions 9.1 Overall conclusion An import control system is in place and complies in many areas with the requirements and objectives of the EEA legislation. An overall improvement was noted since the last mission. However, there were still some significant shortcomings mainly caused by inadequate supervision and administrative measures by the NFSA. 9.2 Supervision of the border inspection posts visited Although systems have been put in place to correct deficiencies identified in previous mission reports from the Authority, and satisfactory assurances for their correction had been provided, some previously identified shortcomings have not been rectified, which is, inter alia, not in compliance with Article 7(2) of Commission Decision 98/139/EC It could still not be ensured that the animal health rules were being complied with in respect of consignments destined for a third country either by transit immediately or after storage in accordance with Articles 12(4) and 13 of Directive 97/78/EC Council Decision 79/542/EEC and Commission Decisions 2005/432/EC, 2000/572/EC, 2000/585/EC, 2003/779/EC, 2004/438/EC and 2005/92/EC A supervisory programme for approved BIPs is in place. However, supervision of BIPs was not yet effective as some of the facilities, keeping of records and procedures in the BIPs were still not fully in accordance with EEA requirements, inter alia, those laid down in Annex II to Council Directive 97/78/EC as well as Article 2(1) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC As guidance on the terminology referring to customs procedures/definitions was still not provided, compliance with Articles 8(4), 11(1)(c) first indent, 12(8) second indent of Council Directive 97/78/EC could not be ensured. 9.3 Co-operation with other authorities, identification and selection of consignments A system for identification and selection of consignments exists. However, due to a lack of access to the databases, or relevant parts thereof, of the Norwegian Customs and Excise, and in addition at BIP Oslo Airport absence of aircraft manifests, full compliance 11 See information on corrective action provided by the NFSA in point of Annex 3.

18 Page 18 with Article 3(1) and 3(2) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, and Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 could still not be ensured Procedures Full compliance with Articles 1(2), 1(3) and 5(2) of Commission Decision 2000/571/EC could not be ensured, since the certificate set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/571/EC was not in use for consignments for direct supply of cross border means of sea transport intended for consumption by staff and passengers Notification of consignments Full compliance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 could still not be ensured since the first page of the CVED was incorrectly filled in for goods in transit and consignments for direct supply of cross border means of sea transport for the purposes of consumption by staff and passengers. In particular, the delivery address and the designated procedure (Boxes 17, 18 and 22) did not always correspond Veterinary checks It could still not be ensured that that consignments not fulfilling applicable animal and public health requirements would be rejected and that relevant veterinary certificates laid down in Commission Decision 2000/571/EC was applied. Full compliance with Article 4(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC could therefore not be assured It was still not in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004, and in particular Article 1(2) and Point 1 of Annex II thereof, that there was no monitoring plan to detect residues, pathogenic organisms or other substances dangerous to humans, animals or the environment. Accordingly, the obligation set out in Article 4(4) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and, inter alia, Article 29(3) of Council Directive 96/23/EC was still not complied with Decisions on consignments The supervisory procedures concerning channelled consignments to be performed by the Norwegian Customs and Excise, as referred to in Article 8(4) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, were still not considered when giving veterinary clearance. 9.5 Supervision of consignments not meeting EEA requirements and transit The supervision of consignments not meeting EEA requirements did still not ensure that all the requirements of Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Commission Decision 2000/571/EC were respected. Due to the deficiencies related to co-operation with other authorities, the staff of the BIPs had limited overview of possible movements of these consignments. 12 See additional information provided by the NFSA in point 9.3 of Annex See information on corrective action provided by the NFSA in point 9.4 of Annex See information on corrective action provided by the NFSA in point of Annex 3.