© fsai administrative assistance and cooperation – a role for flep? flep meeting bfr, berlin 18...
TRANSCRIPT
© FSAI
Administrative Assistance and Cooperation – a role for FLEP?
FLEP MeetingBfR, Berlin 18th-19th February 2015
Dorothy Guina Dornan
© FSAI
Legal framework
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004: Title IV Articles 34-40• Where the outcome of official controls requires
action in more than one MS, CAS must provide each other with administrative assistance
• Assistance on request• Assistance without request• Assistance in the event of non-compliance
• Designated liaison bodies at MS level• Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission• Joint on-the-spot inspections
© FSAI
Administrative Assistance
• Assistance on request• When a MS requires information and documentation
to enable verification of compliance, it must be provided by the requested MS(s)
• Assistance without request• When a MS has information on non-compliances that
may have implications for another MS(s), it must pass that information on without delay. The receiving MS(s) must investigate and inform originating MS of the results of the measures taken
© FSAI
• Assistance in the event of non-compliance• Where during transport or at the MS of destination,
non-compliances are identified which pose a risk to human /animal health or are a serious non-compliance with food/feed law, the CA must notify the MS of dispatch without delay. The receiving MS must investigate, take all necessary measures and notify the CA of the MS who notified of the official controls carried out, the decisions taken and the reasons for such decisions
© FSAI
Administrative Assistance
• Liaison bodies• MS must designate one or more liaison bodies • Assist and coordinate communication between CAs and the
transmission and reception of requests for assistance• MS must inform the Commission of these bodies and their
contact details
• Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission
• Must coordinate without delay the action undertaken by MS, when it becomes aware of activities that are, or appear to be contrary to feed or food law and are of particular interest at Community level
• Inspection, in collaboration with MS• Request intensification of official controls in MS of dispatch
© FSAI
Exchange of Information
RASFF TRACES
Administrative
Assistance and
Cooperation
Administrative
Assistance and
Cooperation
Regulation 178/2002Regulation 16/2011SOPs
Regulation 97/78Article 24: Reinforced measures GuidanceLink to RASFF SOPs
© FSAI
AAC – not as effective as it might be?
• Ad hoc• Non-harmonised and unstructured• No IT tool• Limited uptake by MS• Slow response time• Not always prioritised (based on MS perception of risk)• Language barrier• Lack of clarity between scope of RASFF and AAC…
© FSAI
AAC – not as effective as it might be?
• Scope of RASFF now limited to serious risk. Other non-compliances need an effective mechanism
• FIC – responsibilities through the food chain?• Highlighted in recent food fraud incidents• MS not generally sharing information with the
Commission so limited to those MS notified – potential incidents / trends could be missed
• No mechanism at Commission level to inform third countries of non-compliances which are not serious
© FSAI
How is this being addressed?
• Strengthening the AAC provisions in the review of Regulation 882/2004
• Food Fraud Network• Implementing Act on AAC• Development of an IT tool (pre-IMSOC)• Guidance• Meeting of EU expert WG on AAC (January 2015)
• Questionnaire to MS• MS Case studies – Denmark, France, Slovenia, Ireland
and the United Kingdom
© FSAI
AAC Implementing Act
Commission Implementing Decision
• Food fraud and general AAC modules• Technical specifications
• Definitions • AAC to be established and managed by the
Commission• Responsibilities of the liaison bodies • Standard template
• Personal data protection rules – max retention time of five years….
© FSAI
AAC Implementing Act
• Access to information on the results of official controls and other information - limited to liaison bodies and relevant CAs for the purpose of verification
• Closure of an AAC by the requesting MS
• Request for response if none received within 6 months, with 10 days for receiving MS to reply, with the possibility to remain open for a further 6 months
• RASFF and TRACES should be enabled to provide data to
the AAC system
© FSAI
IT Tool
• Scope of the IT system• Creation of a case:
• Creation• Validation• Request for control in another Ms(s)• Response from MS(s)• Confirmation of response• Closure of notification
• Communication: news and information sharing
• To be rolled out for Food Fraud Network AAC first, once Commission Implementing decision adopted
• Testing phase Q1 2015• Video tutorial and manual
© FSAI
Questionnaire and case studies
• Commission questionnaire completed by 18 MS, 11 of whom used AAC
• MS acknowledged the benefits of such a system• MS identified a number of challenges that need to be
addressed:• Difficulty in understanding when to use RASFF and
when to use ACC• Delays in processing of requests for AAC• Absence of a structured mechanism and IT tool• Lack of clarity as regards the role of the liaison
bodies for AAC• Language barriers• Role of the Commission
• Commission to prepare guidance early 2015 – dynamic document
© FSAI
Role for FLEP?
Should FLEP • contribute to the AAC IT tool format for modules?• input into the proposed guidelines?• input into the review of AAC• assist in strengthening the process as a group and at MS
level?