Final report. EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to ICELAND. 11 to 22 October regarding the application of EEA legislation

Transcription

1 Brussels, 9 December 2005 Case No: Event No: Final report EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to ICELAND 11 to 22 October 2004 regarding the application of EEA legislation related to border inspection posts Comments from the Icelandic Competent Authority are at Annex 2. Some of the comments are also included in the report in underlined italic. Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0) , fax: (+32)(0) ,

2 Page 2 Contents Page List of special terms and abbreviations... 3 Legend Introduction Background and objectives of the mission Legal basis for the mission Other relevant legislation National legislation Main findings Structure and organisation Supervision of the border inspection posts visited Staff of the border inspection posts visited Training of staff Co-operation with other authorities/identification and selection of consignments Procedures Records Documentation Galley waste Supervision of non-eea conform consignments/transit and transhipment Inspection fees Facilities Equipment Hygiene Illegal import Final meeting Conclusions Recommendations to the Icelandic Competent Authority Annex 1: Main findings for each border inspection post Annex 2: Comments from the Icelandic Competent Authority... 32

3 Page 3 List of special terms and abbreviations ANIMO system Annex B Authority BIP CA CVED CVO DF EEA EEA Agreement EU Manifest OV Computerised network system referred to in Article 20 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC that is linking the veterinary authorities throughout the European Economic Area (EEA). It is used to exchange information about the intra- Community trade, import from third countries into the EEA or transport from one third country to another third country via the EEA. Annex B to Commission Decision 93/13/EEC, used by the importer to notify consignments. The official veterinarian completes the Annex B. The EFTA Surveillance Authority Border Inspection Post Competent Authority The Common Veterinary Entry Document, which replaces in the Member States of the European Community the above mentioned Annex B according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 for products imported from third countries and Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 for animals entering from third countries. These regulations were not incorporated into the EEA Agreement at the time of the inspection. Chief Veterinary Officer (Yfirdýralæknir) Directorate of Fisheries (Fiskistofa) European Economic Area Agreement on the European Economic Area European Union List of consignments arriving in the port or airport of destination Official Veterinarian Legend (Numbers and abbreviations used to indicate for which products the BIPs are approved, as laid down in Commission Decision 2001/881/EC and used in the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 86/02/COL of 24 May 2002) Products for human consumption HC Other products NHC Frozen/chilled products T Frozen products T(FR) No temperature requirements NT Checking in line with the requirements of Decision 93/352/EEC taken in execution (1) of Article 19(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC Packed products only (2) Fishery products only (3) Fish meal (including fish feed) only (20)

4 Page 4 1 Introduction The mission to Iceland took place from 11 to 22 October 2004 and was carried out by two inspectors from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (the Authority) accompanied in the second week by an observer from the European Commission s Food and Veterinary Office. Representatives from the Icelandic Competent Authority (CA), the Directorate of Fisheries (DF/Fiskistofa), accompanied the mission team throughout the mission. An informal meeting was held with representatives of the Icelandic Customs Authority in Reykjavík. The opening meeting took place on 11 September 2004, where the objectives and the itinerary of the mission were confirmed by the mission team. At this meeting additional information was also requested by the mission team. After each visit to a border inspection post (BIP), the main observations were presented by the mission team. Representatives from the CA had an opportunity to comment on these observations. 2 Background and objectives of the mission Commission Decision 2001/881/EC requires in its Article 2(2) that BIPs shall be visited at least every three years. The reports from the Authority s inspections of Icelandic BIPs undertaken in 2000 and 2001 are to be found on the Authority s website ( In particular, the final report from 2001 (Doc. No D) (hereinafter referred to as the 2001 report) was followed-up. The objective of the mission was to evaluate the application of the relevant legislation laid down in the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement) and the systems in place in Iceland for control of products of animal origin imported from third countries. This mission included a follow-up of corrective actions taken in response to previous BIP missions carried out by the Authority. Furthermore, the mission team evaluated measures taken by the CA to detect illegal imports of products of animal origin, and assessed the rules applicable concerning imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption. The mission team assessed the infrastructure (apart from one) and working procedures of all approved Icelandic BIPs. 3 Legal basis for the mission The legal basis for the mission was: a) 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. b) Point 4 of the Introductory Part of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement.

5 Page 5 c) 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 in particular Article 23 thereof. d) 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 in particular Article 19 thereof. Although not applicable to Iceland, the Authority followed, as a guideline, the procedures laid down in 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 States. 4 Other relevant legislation An assessment was made of the application of the requirements laid down in the acts referred to at: e) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products. f) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC. g) 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. h) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Decision 92/438/EEC of 13 July 1992 on the computerisation of veterinary import procedures (Shift project), amending Directives 90/675/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 91/628/EEC and Decision 90/424, and repealing Decision 88/192/EEC. i) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 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.

6 Page 6 j) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 93/13/EC of 22 December 1992 laying down the procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products from third countries. k) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 93/352/EEC of 1 June 1993 laying down derogations from the conditions for border inspection posts located in ports where fish is landed. l) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 93/444/EEC of 2 July 1993 on detailed rules governing intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products intended for exportation to third countries. m) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 94/360/EC of 20 May 1994 on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, under Council Directive 97/78/EC. n) 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. o) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 2000/208/EC of 24 February 2000 establishing detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 97/78/EC concerning the transit of products of animal origin from one third country to another third country by road only across the European Community. p) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 2000/571/EC of 8 September 2000 laying down the methods of veterinary checks for products from third countries destined for introduction into free zones, free warehouses, customs warehouses or operators supplying cross border means of sea transport. q) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 2001/812/EC of 21 November 2001 laying down the requirements for the approval of border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced into the Community from third countries. r) Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Decision 2002/349/EC of 26 April 2002 laying down the list of products to be examined at border inspection posts under Council Directive 97/78/EC. s) EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 86/02/COL of 24 May 2002 updating the adaptation text to point 39 in Part 1.2 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement listing border inspection posts in Iceland and Norway agreed for veterinary checks on live animals and animal products from third countries and

7 Page 7 repealing EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 325/99/COL of 16 December Although Council Decision 92/438/EEC (listed above) requiring a computerised register at BIP s is applicable to Iceland, the Decisions giving details on the minimum data requirements for these registers (Commission Decisions 97/394/EEC and 97/152/EC) are not applicable for Iceland, according to the EEA Agreement. 5 National legislation According to the reply from Iceland to the Authority s pre-mission questionnaire, the main Act governing importation of fish and fishery products is Law No. 55/1998 on the handling, production and distribution of fishery products. Furthermore, Regulation No. 849/1999 on the control of imports of fishery products is applicable as amended by Regulations Nos. 2003/2000, 771/2000, 42/2001, 391/2002 and 1000/ Main findings 6.1 Structure and organisation In the Icelandic reply to the pre-mission questionnaire the Authority was informed that the Directorate of Fisheries (DF) still was the CA for the BIPs. There have been no changes in the structure and organisation of the CA since the last BIP mission (see 2001 report). It was observed that at the CA, mainly the same personal was still in charge. The control of animals arriving in Iceland was under the regime of the CVO. 6.2 Supervision of the border inspection posts visited Iceland informed in its reply to the Authority s pre-mission questionnaire, that there is one organisational level in the CA and that no independent local offices exist. All local officers are under direct control of the central office in Reykjavík. It was observed that the staff from the central office in Reykjavík also performs practical work at the BIPs. A clear chain of command could be observed, from the person co-ordinating the activities in the central office, with regard to standardisation of routines and interpretation of legislation at the BIPs. Furthermore, handbooks and checklists were developed. Thus, a homogeneous approach throughout the country was ensured to a large extent. It was observed that the assurances given in response to point in the report from 2001 that the chief of the border inspection division will inspect each BIP at least once a year and make a report to the DF after the visit could not be confirmed, as no such report was presented during the mission. 1 Importation of products took place at BIPs not approved for these categories. For example, fish oil, salted chilled fish and frozen bait were imported via the BIP in Reykjavík. Concerning the import of bait, the mission team took note of the Icelandic position that bait would be considered as a product for non-human consumption, not covered by EEA legislation. Therefore, national rules were applied allowing for a fish inspector to inspect it. Furthermore, these "non-harmonised products do not have to pass via a BIP (see 1 See "Footnote 1" of Annex 2

8 Page 8 further 6.7.5). However, it was observed that these products passed by a BIP, were counted as consignments at the BIP, were subject to veterinary checks according to EEA legislation and a veterinary import certification was issued Staff of the border inspection posts visited In general, the staff at the BIPs visited was well educated and motivated. Concerning the number of staff, Iceland informed in response to point in the report from 2001, that a considerable increase of staff was planned. This could not be confirmed during the mission. At the final meeting a representative of the CA informed that the planned increase in staff had been based on an expected increase in the number of consignments, which did not take place. At the time of the inspection 6.5 staff members had to cater for nine BIPs. It was observed that one staff member of the CA had the obligation to co-ordinate the BIP work, to perform management tasks, to partly work at the BIPs, to inspect the BIPs, to participate in the relevant EU working groups, to provide training and to run the ANIMO system. It was observed that the definition of fishery products in the Icelandic legislation (Law No 55/1998) seems to differ from the definition in Article 2 of Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, as fish meal is included in the Icelandic definition of fishery products. According to the EEA legislation, fish meal is not a fishery product, but processed animal protein, as laid down in Article 2(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC. This lead to the deficiencies described below. 3 The BIP Keflavík Airport is the only BIP in Iceland approved for live animals (other animals / aquaculture animals only). It was headed by an official fish inspector, not an official veterinarian (OV), which is not in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Article 6(2)(d) of Council Directive 91/496/EC. 4 The BIPs in Akureyri, Hafnarfjörður and Reykjavík are, in addition to fishery products, also approved for import of animal protein (fish meal). They were placed under the responsibility of an official fish inspector but not an OV, which is not in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, as fish meal is not a fishery product according to EEA legislation. 5 It could not be demonstrated during the mission that an OV controls the arriving live fish from aquaculture, as required by Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Article 6(2)(d) of Council Directive 91/496/EEC. 6 The BIPs in Reykjavík, Hafnarfjörður, Njarðvík and Akureyri are approved for fish meal, which is defined as animal protein according to Article 2(1)(e) of Council Directive 2 See "Footnote 2" of Annex 2 3 See "Footnote 3" of Annex 2 4 See "Footnote 4" of Annex 2 5 See "Footnote 5" of Annex 2 6 See "Footnote 6" of Annex 2

9 Page 9 92/118/EEC. It was observed that these consignments were inspected by official fish inspectors only and that there was no OV on duty in the BIPs, which is not in line with Article 19(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC as well as Commission Decision 93/352/EEC and the Articles mentioned above (see also 6.6.5) Training of staff The Authority received information in the Icelandic reply to the pre-mission questionnaire that a work procedure has been made for the training of inspection staff and that the DF holds at least one training course per semester. Additionally, monthly harmonisation meetings were held. Other authorities involved in import control, like the Customs Authority, are involved in the training. The most recent European Union (EU) legislation, including, inter alia, Common Veterinary Entrance Documents (CVEDs) for animals and for products of animal origin, Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2004 as amended and Commission Regulation (EC) No 136/2004, respectively, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 668/2004 for model certificates for fish oil, was at the time of the inspection not incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The same applied to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Finally, Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 concerning import of products of animal origin for personal consumption had not been incorporated into the EEA Agreement. However, it was observed that the staff was already trained to use CVEDs for animals and products of animal origin. Although the staff seemed reasonably trained, there was need for further training, in particular with regard to transit and transhipment (see 6.10) Co-operation with other authorities/identification and selection of consignments In the reply to the pre-mission questionnaire, Iceland informed the Authority that the DF has regular contact with the Customs Authority on a central and local level. The DF had no access to the database of the Customs Authority. The following observations were made during the inspection: a) It could not be clarified during the inspection, whether the second indent of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, opening for Member States to inspect the manifests of vessels and aircraft, was transposed into the Icelandic legislation. 9 b) A positive list of products to be subject to veterinary checks at BIPs, as laid down in Commission Decision 2002/349/EC, was not submitted to the customs authorities, port authorities and airport authorities. 10 c) The standard agreements on co-operation with port authorities and the Coast Guard, as presented during the 2001 mission, were still in force. However, the agreement with the port authorities was partly not enforced and covered only at one BIP all kinds of consignments. 7 See "Footnote 7" of Annex 2 8 See "Footnote 8" of Annex 2 9 See "Footnote 9" of Annex 2 10 See "Footnote 10" of Annex 2

10 Page 10 d) At some BIPs there were written agreements with the customs authorities on cooperation. However, these were only enforced at the BIPs in Akureyri and Ísafjörður. 11 e) The mission team was informed that the fish inspectors were not empowered to remove seals or open consignments in the absence of Customs Officials. This might be an obstacle to the performance of identity and physical checks as laid down in Annex III to Council Directive 97/78/EC and Annex A to Commission Decision 93/13/EEC. 12 f) There was no co-operation with the airport authorities at the BIP in Keflavík. 13 g) The mission team was informed by the DF, that there was a written agreement with the CVO s office concerning veterinary checks for live animals from aquaculture arriving at the BIP in Keflavík. No such document was received. 14 h) In a letter dated 25 February 2002, following the 2001 inspection, the Authority was informed by Iceland that cargo manifests would from then on be submitted to the relevant BIPs by telefax from the local Customs Office, before unloading cargo vessels, and that storage lists from fishing vessels would be submitted from the vessel agent before landing to identify and select consignments. This could not be confirmed during the mission. 15 i) It was observed that only pre-selected manifests were submitted from private enterprises, which were not informed of the positive list on products to be subject to veterinary checks. 16 j) The database used by the customs authorities for consignments imported from third countries products, marked the CN codes of products, requiring veterinary checks, with the abbreviation LSA to identify them. However, this abbreviation was used for third country imports and intra-eea trade (import permissions) and allowed to finalize the custom s procedure by simply pressing a yes button. Thus, it was not mandatory to insert a reference to a CVED number for third country products subject to veterinary checks. Therefore, it was not ensured that products were only customs cleared after the relevant veterinary checks had been carried out with satisfactory results, as required in Article 7(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. 17 k) It was observed that in the custom s database the abbreviation LSA did not appear for the CN codes to -09 (fish oil). Thus, there was doubt if the product would always be subject to veterinary checks or if the Customs Authority would always require a CVED when opening the customs procedure. 18 The observation described in the 2001 report under point that the co-operation with customs, port and airport authorities are laid down in written agreements in the BIPs, however, the application of the co-operation is not everywhere functioning as necessary on a day-to-day basis was confirmed. 19 The observation described in the 2001 report under point that the staff in all BIPs did not have a complete overview over the arriving consignments and no cross check 11 See "Footnote 11" of Annex 2 12 See "Footnote 12" of Annex 2 13 See "Footnote 13" of Annex 2 14 See "Footnote 14" of Annex 2 15 See "Footnote 15" of Annex 2 16 See "Footnote 16" of Annex 2 17 See "Footnote 17" of Annex 2 18 See "Footnote 18" of Annex 2 19 See "Footnote 19" of Annex 2

11 Page 11 between the notification and the manifests on one hand and the information submitted by the importer on the other hand could be carried out was confirmed Procedures Notification of consignments Iceland informed the Authority in the reply to the pre-mission document that prior to arrival of a foreign fishing vessel or a cargo vessel carrying fish or fishery products to an Icelandic harbour, it has to notify the Coast Guard, the customs authorities and the DF. The DF received notifications from the ships agents, cargo manifests from the shipping companies and the Coast Guard including information about the type and the quantity of fish products to be landed. Although the CVEDs were not applicable to Iceland at the time of the inspection, the DF provided information on its website on how they should be filled out. It was observed that in most cases the first page of the CVEDs was filled out correctly. It was observed that only in two BIPs (Ìsafjörður and Akureyri), consignments were mostly pre-notified, as required in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. In other BIPs, delays for up to two weeks were observed. In particular, at the BIP Keflavík Airport, notifications of arriving consignments did not arrive prior to the consignment Documentary checks The following main observations were made during the inspection: a) Containerised consignments were accepted as direct landings, only accompanied by a Captain s Declaration from the original fishing vessel, with not in accordance with Article 7(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. 22 b) Captain s Declarations did not contain all information described in Council Regulation (EC) No 1093/ c) Processed products (cooked, frozen shrimp) were accepted as direct landings only accompanied by a Captain s Declaration from the original fishing vessel, which is not in line with the above mentioned legislation. d) Consignments from non-eea approved establishments were accepted (Russian vessels and Canadian freezer stores), which is not in accordance with, inter alia, Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 97/78/EC. It was observed that the number of accepted non listed Russian vessels (two) from which consignments were accepted, was considerably lower than during the 2001 inspection. 24 e) It was observed that the Captain s Declarations did not contain the information mentioned Council Regulation (EC) No 1093/94. Furthermore, they were partly: o signed by the Captain of the transport vessel and not the fishing vessel, o the information on the catch and the signature were made in different colours and different handwritings, o one Captain s Declaration was used for several consignments (the definition of a consignment was not respected) See "Footnote 20" of Annex 2 21 See "Footnote 21" of Annex 2 22 See "Footnote 22" of Annex 2 23 See "Footnote 23" of Annex 2 24 See "Footnote 24" of Annex 2 25 See "Footnote 25" of Annex 2

12 Page 12 f) In some cases the Captain s Declaration was missing. However, the consignments were accepted. 26 g) Re-import of consignments, which had been handled or unloaded in a third country, took place without the veterinary certificate of origin, which is not in accordance with Article 15(a) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. 27 h) The health certificate for fish meal intended for non-human consumption was not in accordance with Commission Decision 94/344/EEC Identity checks Information was received from the CA that identity checks, as required in Articles 4(1) and 8(2) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, were always carried out at the BIPs in Eskifjörður and Akrureyri but sometimes at a non BIP point of entry. 29 It was observed that one of the main reasons for rejection was deficient labelling, which demonstrates an improvement in the performance of identity checks Physical checks Information was received from the CA that physical checks were not always carried out at the BIP Eskifjörður and Akureyri but sometimes at a non BIP point of entry 30, which would not be in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 8(2) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. The following main observations were made: a) The regime for the reduced frequency of physical checks, as laid down in Commission Decision 94/360/EC, was not applied in a harmonised way at all BIPs. At some BIPs, it was also applied for non-harmonised products like fish oil and fish meal, as well as goods in transit, which is not in accordance with Article 1 of the mentioned Decision. 31 b) The frequency of general laboratory checks, as laid down in Commission Decision 93/13/EEC, was not always respected. However, it was observed that there was a new working routine since c) There was no sampling plan in place for residues in products originating from third countries, as foreseen in Annex D to Commission Decision 93/13/EEC. 33 d) Not all laboratories used by the BIPs were approved by the CA (in the north of Iceland). 34 e) More stringent checks are supposed to be applied for the 10 following consignments in case of positive laboratory results, in accordance with Article 24 of Council Directive 97/78/EC Decisions on consignments The following main observations were made during the inspection: 26 See "Footnote 26" of Annex 2 27 See "Footnote 27" of Annex 2 28 See "Footnote 28" of Annex 2 29 See "Footnote 29" of Annex 2 30 See "Footnote 30" of Annex 2 31 See "Footnote 31" of Annex 2 32 See "Footnote 32" of Annex 2 33 See "Footnote 33" of Annex 2 34 See "Footnote 34" of Annex 2 35 See "Footnote 35" of Annex 2

13 Page 13 a) The findings mentioned under point in the 2001 report, that consignments were accepted although they should have been rejected due to irregularities found during veterinary checks, were reconfirmed, but to a smaller extent. This practice is not in accordance with Articles 5 (reference is made to the deficiencies related to veterinary checks), 7 and 17 of Council Directive 97/78/EC. b) Veterinary import documents were signed by fish inspectors for products of animal origin not covered by Commission Decision 93/352/EEC. This is not in accordance with Articles 5(1) and 19(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. Additionally, on the respective veterinary documents, for example Annex C to Commission Decision 94/344/EC, for fish meal it is written the undersigned official veterinarian certifies [ ] as well as signature of the official veterinarian. 36 c) Products were imported via BIPs which were not approved for those categories, like fish oil at the BIP in Hafnarfjöður and chilled products for human consumption, as well as products for non-human consumption, other than fish meal (bait), at the BIP in Reykjavík. 37 d) The supervisory procedures on non EEA-conform consignments arriving in Transit (at the BIP in Hafnarfjörður and the BIP in Reykjavík), as laid down in Council Directive 97/78/EC, were not applied. 38 e) There was no procedure for re-imported consignments. According to Article 15(1)(b) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, they should go under customs supervision back to the establishment of origin, but they were released for free circulation. 39 f) There was no procedure for destruction of detained consignments, concerning incineration and confirmation of destruction. 40 g) The procedures for rejected consignments were not as laid down in Article 17(2) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, as o the reduced frequency of physical checks was applied, o the accompanying health certificates were not invalidated, o it was not always confirmed that the rejected consignment had left, o if rejected consignments were sent for transformation (animal feed), no ANIMO message was sent (at the time of the inspection TRACES was not in use), o it was accepted that rejected consignments were sold to other third countries, although they should only be re-dispatched to the country of origin Records The records were in line with the legal requirements, apart from missing due dates for rejection e.g. at BIP Keflavík airport. 6.8 Documentation The DF provides updated documentation regularly to all BIPs. Only some minor deficiencies were observed, e.g. no lists for establishments from countries listed in part 2 of Commission Decision 97/296/EC, which were corrected during the inspection. 36 See "Footnote 36" of Annex 2 37 See "Footnote 37" of Annex 2 38 See "Footnote 38" of Annex 2 39 See "Footnote 39" of Annex 2 40 See "Footnote 40" of Annex 2 41 See "Footnote 41" of Annex 2

14 Page Galley waste It was observed that good procedures existed in Reykjavík for the supervision of destruction of galley waste, but at the other BIPs there were several gaps in the information, although agreements were partly in place. Iceland informed the mission team that the landfill sites, used for the disposal of landfill waste, were approved in accordance with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April on the landfill of waste. Rejected consignments were mainly destroyed in incinerators. However, incinerators were not present close to all BIPs, e.g. Húsavík and Eskifjörður Supervision of non-eea conform consignments/transit and transhipment It was observed that non EEA-conform consignments passing through Iceland were not supervised and there was no feedback received, at the BIP of entry, that they had left Iceland. Furthermore, the veterinary certificate, accompanying consignments of products from a warehouse approved under Article 12(4)(b) or from an operator authorised under Article 13(1) of Directive 97/78/EC, directly to a vessel or via a specially approved warehouse [ ], as laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2000/571/EC, was not in use. During the inspection it could not be clarified whether this Decision has been transposed into the Icelandic legislation. It could not be clarified during the inspection whether the transit is under customs supervision, as required by Article 11(2)(c) of Council Directive 97/78/EC. However, due to the geographical situation transit by road is limited, but might increase as the coast liner will stop activity on 1 December At the BIP at Keflavík airport, there was no system in place to detect transhipments and no information was received from the Customs Authority on transhipments Inspection fees There was a standardised system in place demonstrating that the fees were paid before goods were released Facilities In particular at the BIP Njarðvík, major deficiencies were observed with regard to the storage, as there was no storage for products for non-human consumption and as already observed in 2001, the presented storage was not a part of the BIP s working unit. 44 At the other BIPs it was observed that the used separate stand alone containers were not linked to the unloading area in such a manner that the unloading process is under shelter from the weather, as required by Article 4(3) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. 45 The storage facilities, situated in commercial storages, were partly not fenced off (Keflavík) and were partly used by the establishments when inspected. Thus, it could not 42 See "Footnote 42" of Annex 2 43 See "Footnote 43" of Annex 2 44 See "Footnote 44" of Annex 2 45 See "Footnote 45" of Annex 2

15 Page 15 be demonstrated that there is immediate access to appropriate storage for detained consignments under supervision of the OV, as required by the Article mentioned above. 46 Consignments were imported via BIPs that did not provide for the necessary storage facilities for those products, as they were not approved for these categories (see also 6.6.5). 47 Some of the unloading areas were either not clearly dedicated to the BIP and/or not included in the written agreements made with private enterprises, to ensure their exclusive use for the BIP, while unloading third country consignments. 48 It was not in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Decision 2001/812/EC that the social rooms in the BIP in Reykjavík were shared with personnel not involved in official controls. Iceland informed the mission team that there were plans to rebuild the BIP. 49 In the rebuilt BIP in Hafnarfjörður construction of the facilities was not finalised to the extent that the BIP was serviceable Equipment The BIPs were generally well equipped. Only at the BIP Hafnarfjörður the equipment needs to be completed Hygiene In particular in the storages of the BIP Njarðvík, but also to a smaller extent in the storages of the BIPs Hafnarfjörður and Ìsafjörður, the operational hygiene could not ensure that veterinary checks could be conducted in such a manner as to avoid the possibility of cross contamination, as required in point 5(2) in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. Additionally, the vertical legislation (e.g. Council Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products) requires that EEA conform and EEA non-conform products are strictly separated, as well as exposed products and packed products, which was violated to a large extent in Njarðvík. 51 For example one consignment of fish was found for which the bestby-sell date expired 1.5 years before inspection day. Furthermore, the provisions of Council Directive 91/493/EEC have to be applied, also when approving new BIPs or ICs. This is in particular relevant for the provisions laid down in the second indent of point 2 in Chapter II (requirements during and after landing), the third indent of point 2 in Chapter VI (packaging) and point 3 in Chapter VIII (storage and transport) in the Annex. 52 There were no deficiencies with regard to cleaning and disinfection in the inspection rooms, social rooms and offices of the BIPs visited. 46 See "Footnote 46" of Annex 2 47 See "Footnote 47" of Annex 2 48 See "Footnote 48" of Annex 2 49 See "Footnote 49" of Annex 2 50 See "Footnote 50" of Annex 2 51 See "Footnote 51" of Annex 2 52 See "Footnote 52" of Annex 2

16 Page Illegal import The EU legislation concerning import for private consumption was not applicable to Iceland. However, Iceland informed in its answer to the pre-mission questionnaire, that national legislation covering these kinds of imports is partly stricter than the EU legislation. Arriving passengers were checked by the Customs Authorities in co-operation with the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO/ Yfirdýralæknir). It was observed that there was awareness concerning the possibility of illegal imports, but the CA considered its responsibilities limited to fishery products for human consumption only. However, the legislation currently in the EEA Agreement calls already for more activities to prevent from illegal import (see points 6.5, and 6.10). 53 There was an existing system for supervision of non-bip-points of entry by other Icelandic Authorities, but there was no flow of information from the CA to these authorities by, for example, submitting the positive list of products to be subject to veterinary checks. 54 Information was received from the Customs Authorities that in 2003 an amount of 2.5 tons of meat were seized by customs at all entry points. Out of this, 74% were seized at Keflavík airport and 13% at non BIP points of entry. Even though priority for random checks performed on travellers did not concern products of animal origin, the confiscation rate of meat increased in 2003 considerably Final meeting A final meeting was held on 22 October 2004 at the DF. Representatives of the Ministry of Fisheries, as well as a representative of the Customs Authorities, were present. At the meeting the mission team presented orally the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the mission and informed that additional conclusions could be included in the report, based on a more detailed assessment of the information received during the mission. The DF explained its position that if bait is considered a product for non-human consumption it would be a fishery product. Thus, a fish inspector could inspect it in accordance with Commission Decision 93/352/EEC. In case bait would be regarded as a product for non-human consumption, Iceland would consider it as a product not covered by EEA legislation. Therefore, national rules apply, which allow for a fish inspector to inspect import of bait. Furthermore, "non-harmonised products would not have to pass via a BIP. According to the Icelandic rules, the importer has to trace the use and disposal of imported bait. A representative of the DF welcomed that the mission team had noted improvements in certain sectors and assured to go thoroughly through the comments. He informed that at the BIP in Hafnarfjörður, the annexed stand alone container providing storage would be connected by a roof and side walls with the rest of the BIP. 56 Furthermore, he informed on plans to rebuild the BIP Reykjavík in the same way as the BIP Hafnarfjörður. Additionally, there would be discussions on a possible IC in the port of Reykjavík. Finally, he stated Iceland s intention to propose at the EC s working group for veterinary checks 53 See "Footnote 53" of Annex 2 54 See "Footnote 54" of Annex 2 55 See "Footnote 55" of Annex 2 56 See "Footnote 56" of Annex 2

17 Page 17 for discussion the requirements to have roofs for loading / unloading storage containers, the use of Captain s Declarations from fishing vessels in case of un- and re-loading products in another third country and an opening for fish inspectors to inspect fish meal. The representative of the Food and Veterinary Office took note of these comments. 8 Conclusions 8.1 Structure and organisation The structure and organisation of the DF regarding veterinary checks is defined and a clear chain of command exists. However, as deficiencies were observed with regard to the staff of BIPs performing veterinary checks on animal protein and live animals from aquaculture, the Authority must conclude that the current structure and organisation of the CA could not guarantee for veterinary checks to be performed according to the EEA legislation in the above mentioned categories (see 6.3 and 6.5) Supervision of the border inspection posts visited The current definition of fishery products, as laid down in the Icelandic legislation, including fish meal is not in line with the relevant EEA legislation. It led to deficiencies in the supervision of BIPs, accepting performance of veterinary checks at BIPs not in accordance with Council Directive 97/78/EC. There was still no documented supervision of the BIPs. This needs to be established, at least for those BIPs not operated by the staff from Reykjavík. This was mainly due to the workload put on the BIP coordinator Staff of the border inspection posts visited Due to a deficient transposition of the definition of fishery products into Icelandic legislation, veterinary checks were not performed as required in Council Directive 97/78//EC (see above). 59 The numbers of staff at the BIPs was insufficient for the number of BIPs. In particular, the coordinator for the BIPs seemed to have too many tasks at the time of the mission, which could be the reason for certain deficiencies noted by the mission team (see also 8.3). 60 It was not in line with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC that BIPs, which are not only approved for fishery products, were not placed under the authority of an OV but an official agent. This applied to the BIPs in Akureyri, Hafnarfjörður, Keflavík and Reykjavík, as they are approved for animal protein or live animals from aquaculture. 61 It was not in line with the EEA legislation that fish inspectors at BIPs inspected consignments of animal protein as well as live animals from aquaculture and signed the respective veterinary import certificates (see 6.3 and 6.6.5) See "Footnote 57" of Annex 2 58 See "Footnote 58" of Annex 2 59 See "Footnote 59" of Annex 2 60 See "Footnote 60" of Annex 2 61 See "Footnote 61" of Annex 2 62 See "Footnote 62" of Annex 2

18 Page Training of staff The level of training had improved since However, further training is needed, in particular with regard to supervision of consignments in transit, as well as selection and identification of consignments Co-operation with other authorities and identification and selection of consignments Severe deficiencies with regard to the identification and selection of consignments were observed as the second indent of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, opening for the inspection of cargo manifests, was not applied. 64 The observations made in 2001 could be confirmed, as it was still not ensured that the BIPs received from other authorities, in particular the Customs Authority, all relevant information and necessary for the identification and selection of consignments, as required in Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and point 5(1) to the Annex of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. It can further be concluded, that the BIPs visited did not have an overview of all consignments arriving from third countries, as no cross checks of cargo manifests were carried out. 65 In light of the deficiencies mentioned under point 6.6, which are confirmations of those mentioned in the 2001 report, it must be concluded that illegal import of consignments can not be excluded. Furthermore, it could not be fully ensured that all products referred to in Commission Decision 2002/349/EC are subject to veterinary border control. In addition, it could not be ensured that all products are only customs cleared after the relevant veterinary checks have been carried out with satisfactory results, as required in Article 7(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC (see observation related to LSA ). 66 Finally, it was not ensured that staff performing veterinary border control has full access to consignments in the absence of a customs officer, hindering an adequate functioning of the import control system Procedures Notification of consignments Due to the deficient pre-notification of consignments (Akureyri and Ísafjörður excluded) the BIP staff could not identify and select consignments, as required by Article 3(1) of Council Directive 97/78/EC, in order to prevent possible illegal importation. Furthermore, consignments were introduced on the Territory for up to two weeks before veterinary checks were carried out, which is not fully in accordance with Article 1 of Council Directive 97/78/EC Documentary checks The documentary checks had improved compared to the observations made during the mission carried out in However, it was still not ensured that only consignments fulfilling the requirements in Article 4(3) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Annex A of 63 See "Footnote 63" of Annex 2 64 See "Footnote 64" of Annex 2 65 See "Footnote 65" of Annex 2 66 See "Footnote 66" of Annex 2 67 See "Footnote 67" of Annex 2 68 See "Footnote 68" of Annex 2

19 Page 19 Commission Decision 93/13/EEC were accepted for import. In particular, no action had been taken to completely stop imports of fishery products from non-listed Russian freezer vessels and to accept only Captain s Declarations in cases of direct landings of fishing vessels. Furthermore, for several types of consignments incorrect certification was accepted Identity checks It was not ensured that identity checks were only carried out at the BIPs Physical checks The physical checks had improved, but were still not fully in compliance with Article 4(4)(b) of Council Directive 97/78/EC and Commission Decision 94/360/EC, with regard to laboratory checks and the reduced frequency of physical checks. More stringent checks are to be applied for the 10 following consignments in case of positive laboratory results in accordance with Article 24 of Council Directive 97/78/EC Decisions on consignments It was not in accordance with Articles 5, 7 and 17 of Council Directive 97/78/EC that consignments that should have been rejected are accepted for import. Most of the findings were a confirmation of those already mentioned in the 2001 report. 71 The CA did not ensure that the BIP personnel, signing for veterinary documentation, has the qualification required in the EEA legislation. 72 The CA did not have procedures in place for all scenarios foreseen in the relevant EEA legislation like non-eea conform goods in transit, re-import of consignments rejected by a third country, destruction of detained consignments and handling of rejected consignments Records Although some Acts related to records were not applicable to Iceland (see point 4), the records at the BIPs fulfilled the requirements laid down in those Acts. 8.8 Documentation The documentation was as required in the relevant EEA legislation. 8.9 Galley waste The supervision of handling of galley waste was not homogenous throughout the country. Apart from Reykjavík, the procedures were not in accordance with point 5(3) in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/812/EC Supervision of non-eea conform consignments/transit and transhipment The administration and supervision of non-eea conform goods, in particular, arriving on non-eea approved Russian freezer vessels (see 6.6.2) and of consignments passing 69 See "Footnote 69" of Annex 2 70 See "Footnote 70" of Annex 2 71 See "Footnote 71" of Annex 2 72 See "Footnote 72" of Annex 2 73 See "Footnote 73" of Annex 2 74 See "Footnote 74" of Annex 2

20 Page 20 through Iceland in (road) transit, was not in accordance with the relevant EEA legislation. The BIP staff had limited view over the movement of non-conform goods. In particular, the supervision of good in transit was not assured. 75 The veterinary certificates, to be used for products from third countries destined for introduction into a free zone, free warehouse, customs warehouse or operators supplying cross border means of transport were not applied, as laid down in Commission Decision 2000/571/EC Inspection fees The procedures on collection of inspection fees were in line with the relevant EEA legislation Facilities It was not in line with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC that products not covered by the approval were imported via certain BIPs. The respective BIPs did not contain storage facilities for those products, as they had been approved by the Authority in accordance with Article 3(3) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. 77 The Authority observed that Iceland did not notify any changes in the infrastructure or operation of a BIP that had any bearing on its listing, as required in Article 3(5) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. The same Article states that additions to the categorisation of any BIP may be proposed by Iceland, after the CA has checked that the facilities comply with the Decision, for approval and amendment to the listing by the Authority. 78 It was not in accordance with Article 4(2)(e) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC that BIPs were still lacking appropriate storage rooms or areas to permit detained consignments to be held at chilled, frozen, or ambient temperatures at the same time, under the control of the OV, pending the results of laboratory analyses or other investigations. Furthermore, it is not in accordance with Article 4(3) of that Decision that in commercial storages used, no immediate access to an adequate volume of storage is available at all times, as necessary for the OV, and that detained product was not stored in a separate lockable room, chamber, or zone clearly fenced off from all other products, as required in Article 4(3) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. Thus, no improvement was noted in particular with regard to the storages to have them at hand and also with regard to the unloading area to permit an unloading process under shelter from the weather. 79 In some BIPs an unloading area could not be identified, as required in Article 4(2)(c) of Commission Decision 2001/812/EC. 80 The facilities at the BIP Hafnarfjörður were not yet serviceable See "Footnote 75" of Annex 2 76 See "Footnote 76" of Annex 2 77 See "Footnote 77" of Annex 2 78 See "Footnote 78" of Annex 2 79 See "Footnote 79" of Annex 2 80 See "Footnote 80" of Annex 2 81 See "Footnote 81" of Annex 2