Final report. EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY. from 18 to 27 May regarding the application of EEA legislation related to

Transcription

1 Case No: Event No: Final report EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY from 18 to 27 May 2011 regarding the application of EEA legislation related to catering waste from means of transport operating internationally, import control on non-commercial pets and private consignments of products of animal origin in personal luggage and mail Comments and corrective actions from Norway are given in Appendix 1 and 2 and are referred to in the report in footnotes in italic print. Corrections of factual errors are included in the body of the report in italic underlined print. Sensible information has been blackened out in the Appendixes. Links to internal documents and additional supporting information included in the reply from Norway has been excluded from the report. Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0) , fax: (+32)(0) ,

2 Page 2 Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of a mission carried out by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in Norway from 18 to 27 May The objective of the mission was to evaluate and to verify that the official controls in Norway, related to catering waste from means of transport operating internationally, import control on non-commercial pets and import control of consignments of products of animal origin for private consumption (luggage/post/mail/parcels), were carried out in compliance with the relevant European Economic Area legislation. The mission team noted that in general the coordination and cooperation, both within and between competent authorities involved, were limited, in particular with regard to official controls on catering waste and private consignments of products of animal origin in personal luggage/mail. With regard to official controls on catering waste, the mission team noted that instructions issued by the central level of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority were only addressed to district offices having a border inspection post. Furthermore, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority only considered catering waste originating in third countries as falling under the scope of catering waste, not all catering waste from means of transport operating internationally. With regard to official controls on movement of non-commercial pets the mission team noted that Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 had not been made part of the internal legal order of Norway as such. According to the Norwegian legislation, non-commercial pets introduced from Svalbard to Norway should fulfil the same requirements as pets listed in Part A and B of Annex II to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Svalbard is not included in the scope of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, it is not listed in Annex II of the said Regulation and there is no adaptation text to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 in Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area regarding introduction of pets from Svalbard. With regard to official controls on private consignments of products of animal origin in personal luggage and mail, the mission team noted that instructions issued by the central level of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority were only addressed to district offices having a border inspection post. Private consignments seized other places in Norway would in some cases be forwarded to the border inspection post of Oslo port for further case handling. The border inspection post would adopt a decision based on the requirements for commercial consignments laid down for in Directive 97/78/EC. Furthermore, not all non-compliant products would be seized and destroyed as required by Regulation (EC) No 745/2004. The report includes a number of recommendations addressed to the Norwegian competent authority(ies) aimed at rectifying the identified shortcomings or deficiencies and enhancing the control system in place.

3 Page 3 Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION CONTROLS ON INCOMING NON-COMMERCIAL PET ANIMALS COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Designation of competent authorities, coordination and co-operation between competent authorities involved Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ORGANISATION OF THE CONTROLS CONTROLS ON PERSONAL CONSIGNMENTS OF PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Designation of competent authorities, coordination and co-operation between competent authorities involved Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ORGANISATION OF THE CONTROLS CONTROL OF DISPOSAL OF CATERING WASTE FROM INTERNATIONAL MEANS OF TRANSPORT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Designation of competent authorities, coordination and cooperation between competent authorities involved Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ORGANISATION OF THE CONTROLS FINAL MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NORWEGIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITY ANNEX 1 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THE REPORT ANNEX 2 - OTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION APPENDIX 1: CUSTOMS AND EXCISE COMMENTS TO DRAFT REPORT FROM EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY MISSION TO NORWAY APPENDIX 2: REPLY FROM THE NFSA; COMMENTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

4 Page 4 1 Introduction The mission took place in Norway from 18 to 27 May 2011 as part of the EFTA Surveillance Authority s (the Authority) planned mission program. The mission team comprised two inspectors from the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The opening meeting was held with representatives of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (KLIF) and the Norwegian Directorate for Customs and Excise (Customs) on Wednesday 18 May at Oslo airport Gardermoen. At the meeting, the mission team confirmed the objectives and the itinerary of the mission, and the Norwegian representatives provided additional information to that set out in the reply to the Authority's pre-mission document. Throughout the mission, representatives of the head office of the NFSA accompanied the mission team. A final meeting was held with representatives of NFSA, KLIF, Customs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Oslo on Friday 27 May 2011, during which the mission team presented its main findings and some preliminary conclusions from the mission. The Norwegian representatives did not indicate any disagreement with the findings of the mission team and the preliminary conclusions presented. The abbreviations used in the report are listed in Annex 1. 2 Scope and objectives of the mission The main scope of the mission was to assess the application by the Norwegian competent authorities of: a) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement), Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as corrected and as amended and adapted; b) The Act referred to in Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC, as amended and adapted; c) The Act referred to in Point of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 of 16 April 2004 laying down measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, as adapted. d) The Act referred to at Point 7.1.9b of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, as corrected and as amended A particular focus was paid to the control systems in place for: movement of non-commercial pets; import of personal consignments containing products of animal origin for personal consumption (luggage, mail parcels and packages), and disposal of catering waste from means of transport operating internationally

5 Page 5 The meetings with the competent authorities and the visits to different sites during the mission are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Competent authorities and sites visited during the mission Meetings/sites visited Comments Competent authorities 2 An opening and a final meeting with representatives from the NFSA, KLIF and the Customs. In addition, representatives from the relevant regional offices and district offices of the NFSA accompanied the mission team during the visits to the different sites. Sites where catering waste from means of transport operating internationally could be unloaded Operators collecting/ handling and/ or transporting catering waste to the site of disposal Facilities where catering waste could be disposed of Designated points of entry for international passengers and entry points for noncommercial pets 6 Three airports and three ports. In all airport and two of the ports, the relevant airport operator (Avinor) and Port operators/authorities were met. In addition representatives from the relevant County governor were present during the visits to one of the ports where catering waste could be unloaded. 6 Representatives from four operators handling catering/ catering waste were met in the airports visited. In addition one operator collecting and transporting catering waste from an airport, and one operator transporting catering waste unloaded in a port, to the facilities where the waste was disposed of. 2 Two incinerators. A representative from the relevant County governor was present during the visit to one of these. 5 Three airports, one road and one port. One of the airports, the port and the road entry point were located under a district office of the NFSA with a border inspection post (BIP). Representatives from the relevant local Customs office were present during these visits Authorised kennel 1 One kennel authorised by the regional NFSA to house noncommercial pets in isolation awaiting official checks to be carried out/treatment for echinococcosis/return to country of origin/ or euthanasia Post terminal 1 Representatives of the Norwegian Postal service and the local Customs were present during this meeting. 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 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; c) The Act referred to at Point of Chapter I to 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; d) Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. Other legislation relevant for the mission is listed in Annex 2 to this document.

6 Page 6 4 CONTROLS ON INCOMING NON-COMMERCIAL PET ANIMALS 4.1 Competent authorities Designation of competent authorities, coordination and co-operation between competent authorities involved. Legal Requirements Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2007/25/EC require Member States to designate the authorities responsible for checks on non-commercial pet animals and birds as well as certain checks to be carried out. Article 4(3) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provide for efficient and effective co-ordination between competent authorities involved in official controls and efficient and effective coordination and cooperation between the different units involved. Article 4(6) of the same Regulation requires competent authorities to carry out internal audits or may have external audits carried out. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the NFSA is the competent authority for movement of non-commercial pets. According to additional information provided in the opening meeting, the Customs have legal competence to carry out inspections on behalf of other Norwegian authorities, including the NFSA, at entry points. Dogs, cats and ferrets from other EEA countries are checked by Customs and the NFSA is only contacted in case of non-compliances. Pet animals from third countries will be checked by the NFSA. If the country of dispatch is not listed in the Annex to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, the animal may only be introduced via one of two entry points where there is a BIP approved for the relevant species of live animals, Oslo airport Gardermoen or Storskog road. The mission team noted that the coordination and cooperation between the local NFSA at the BIPs visited and the local Customs were well established and functioning. However, at one of the entry point visited, the precise allocation of responsibility for animals housed in isolation at the entry point and cleaning/disinfecting the facilities used for housing these animals was unclear. According to information provided by the NFSA during the mission, the system for import controls on non-commercial pets had not been included in any internal or external audits at the time of the mission. Conclusions Competent authorities responsible for checks on non-commercial pet animals and birds had been designated in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2007/25/EC. Full compliance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not be ensured in particular since the responsibilities related to housing of animals in isolation were not always clear Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system. Legal Requirements Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 requires Member States to ensure that personnel at entry points are fully informed of the rules and are able to implement them.

7 Page 7 Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have access to a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Article 6 of the same Regulation requires the competent authorities to ensure that staff receives appropriate training and keep the staff updated in their area of competence. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, approximately 108 officials in the NFSA are involved in official controls on incoming non-commercial pets. At the time of the mission, no specific training courses related to import of pet animals had been arranged for NFSA staff. The Customs have approximately 300 officials at the entry points, including at the borders to Finland and Sweden. The basic training of all Customs officers includes training related to requirements for introduction of non-commercial pet animals. According to additional information provided in the opening meeting, a representative of the NFSA had been to all the Customs regional offices giving a speech on the requirements for movements of noncommercial pets. The mission team noted that the Customs officers met during the mission in general had good knowledge of the requirements for introduction of non-commercial pets, how to carry out the controls and when to contact the NFSA. The representative of the NFSA met during the mission had good knowledge of the requirements for movement of noncommercial pets. Conclusions Personnel at the entry points had in general good knowledge of the requirements of the rules and are able to implement them in line with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and Articles 4(2)(c) and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/ Legislative and policy framework Legal Requirements Article 7(a) of the EEA Agreement states that, an act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal legal order of the Contracting Parties. Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 requires that Member States shall provide the public with clear and easily accessible information concerning the conditions under which pet animals may enter or re-enter the territory of the EEA. Article 13 of the same Regulation requires that the Member States draw up a list of entry points and Article 2 of Commission Decision 2007/25 lays down similar provisions for pet birds, these lists should further be forwarded to the other Member States and the Authority. Article 4(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have legal powers to carry out official controls and to take measures provided for. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the NFSA has a detailed and informative website. In addition, brochures had been made and were available at veterinary and customs offices, and numerous posters were made for airports, ports, ferryboats, cruise ships etc. The mission team noted that the information available in English on the website of the NFSA, only covered requirements for dogs, cats and ferrets. Information, available in Norwegian on the website of the NFSA, related to travelling to Norway with pet birds, only covered the national requirements for introduction of pet birds. Requirements laid down in

8 Page 8 Commission Decision 2007/25 were not included. According to the national requirements, temporary introduction of pet birds to Norway is only permitted from Sweden, Finland and Denmark. It was further set out in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, that non-commercial pets may be introduced at any road, ferry port or airport with international traffic, except for pets from third countries not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. There are 21 airports in Norway with international flights, in addition there are 519 approved international ports. However, in one of the ports visited, the local port authority stated that there are 640 International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) authorised ports in Norway. At the time of the mission, only the list of entry points applicable for dogs, cats and ferrets, arriving from third countries not listed in the Annex II of the Regulation had been forwarded to the Authority. A draft list of entry points for non-commercial pets arriving from listed third countries was submitted to the mission team during the mission, the list included entry points by road or by air, however, no ports were included on the list. Furthermore, the airport in Svalbard, which is not included in the scope of the EEA Agreement, was included in the draft list of entry points. According to information provided for in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the owners of non-compliant pets are, in case of non-compliances, presented the following options; isolation, rejection or euthanasia The owner will have to sign a declaration which serves a dual purpose; firstly it identifies which option is chosen by the owner, secondly it ensures the right of the NFSA to impose any costs related to the relevant option on the owner/responsible person. If the owner refuses to choose, the same document outlines that the NFSA may adopt a decision based on one of the three possibilities. According to the Norwegian Regulation incorporating Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, noncommercial pets introduced from Svalbard to Norway should fulfil the same requirements as pets listed in Part A and B of Annex II to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 although Svalbard is not included in the scope of the EEA Agreement, it is not listed in Annex II of the said Regulation and there is no adaptation text to the Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 in Annex I to the EEA Agreement regarding introduction of pets from Svalbard. Conclusions Full compliance with Article 7(a) of the EEA Agreement could not be ensured since Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 has not been made part of the internal legal order of Norway as such. Furthermore, since non-commercial pets introduced from Svalbard to Norway, according to the Norwegian Regulation incorporating Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 should fulfil the same requirements as pets listed in Part A and B of Annex II to that Regulation, the NFSA does not require pets arriving from Svalbard to enter quarantine upon arrival to Norway in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 8(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Information concerning the conditions under which dogs, cats and ferrets may enter or reenter the territory of the EEA were available in line with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. However, information relevant for other species was not clear and easily accessible. Full compliance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 and Article 2 of Commission Decision 2007/25 could not be ensured since Norway has not drawn up lists of entry points and forwarded these to other Member States and the Authority.

9 Page Organisation of the controls Legal Requirements Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to carry out official controls in accordance with documented procedures and to ensure that corrective action is taken when needed. Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 requires Member States to ensure that pet animals brought into Community territory from a third country are subject to documentary and identity checks. Article 14 of the same Regulation indicates the possible options that competent authorities can take when an animal does not meet the requirements laid down in that Regulation. Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States to prepare a single integrated multi-annual national control plan (MANCP). Article 42 of the same Regulation lays down the details in the MANCP, inter alia organisation of control systems applied to different sectors and coordination between the different services of competent authorities responsible for official controls in these sectors. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, all animals should be presented to Customs upon arrival. The Customs have schedules of international flights, cruise ships etc. and will be present at the entry points at relevant times. Customs officers carry out checks on pet animals from other EEA Member States and from Svalbard. Pets from third countries listed in Part C of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 should be notified to the relevant district office of the NFSA 48 hours prior to arrival at an entry point. The NFSA would in such cases be present at the entry point in question at the requested time to carry out the controls. Pets arriving from third countries not listed in Annex II may arrive Norway via one of two entry points where there is a BIP approved for live animals, Oslo airport Gardermoen or Storskog road. The head office of the NFSA had issued procedures for the Customs and the district offices of the NFSA on actions to be taken in cases where the requirements for introduction of non-commercial animals are not fulfilled. However, the mission team noted that the written procedures did not include the relevant requirements that should be fulfilled. In case of non-compliances or if pets arrive from third countries without the NFSA having been notified 48 hours prior to arrival, the Customs will notify the relevant district office (within office hours) or the national on call official from the NFSA (outside office hours). The mission team noted that these pet animals were to be temporarily housed in isolation awaiting official checks to be carried out by the NFSA. The regional offices of the NFSA had the competence to authorise kennels for this purpose. The mission team noted that at one of the entry points visited, no authorised kennel was available. At this entry point, animals were foreseen to be housed in a cage placed in the facilities of the Customs. However, the written procedure issued by the head office of the NFSA only described temporary housing in isolation in kennels authorised for that purpose. National guidelines for authorising kennels had been issued by the head office of the NFSA in August According to these guidelines, animals might need housing for up to six days during long holidays awaiting checks to be carried out and a decision to be adopted by the local NFSA. The stay might be further prolonged to a total of approximately ten days before the decision adopted (treatment for echinococcosis, return to country of dispatch or euthanasia) could be effectuated. No animals should be released from isolation without written permit from the NFSA. The mission team noted that the

10 Page 10 guidelines listed the requirements together with description of relevant supportive documentation that should be submitted to the NFSA by the kennels prior to authorisation. However, the guidelines did not specify that the facilities should be inspected to verify that the requirements were fulfilled. A kennel authorised in January 2011 for temporary housing animals in isolation was visited. The mission team noted that the relevant district office of the NFSA had carried out an inspection of the facilities in May Some non-compliances had been identified during this inspection. However, no documentation of follow up of these could be presented to the mission team during the mission. Furthermore, the same non-compliances were still observed at the time of the mission. The mission team also noted that the isolation room and the facilities used for stray dogs shared entrance and that animals in isolation would be taken for walks outside in a public area. Finally, no written permit from the NFSA could be presented for a dog that had been released from the kennel to its owner. The mission team noted that the MANCP prepared by Norway did not describe the organisation of control systems applied to movement of non-commercial pets and the coordination between the different services of competent authorities responsible for official controls in this sector. Conclusions Full compliance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not be ensured since the written procedures for checks to be carried out did not describe relevant requirements and how to carry out the controls. Furthermore, the written procedures were not always followed since a dog was released from isolation without written permit from the NFSA. Finally, it was not always ensured that corrective actions were taken when needed. All pet animals brought into Norway are subject to documentary and identity checks in line with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. Full compliance with Articles 41 and 42 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not always be ensured since the MANCP prepared by Norway did not describe the organisation of control systems applied to movement of non-commercial pets and the coordination between the different services of competent authorities responsible for official controls in this sector. 5 CONTROLS ON PERSONAL CONSIGNMENTS OF PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN 5.1 Competent authorities Designation of competent authorities, coordination and co-operation between competent authorities involved Legal Requirements Article 4(3) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provide for efficient and effective coordination between competent authorities involved in official controls and efficient and effective coordination and cooperation between the different units involved. Article 4(6) of the same Regulation requires the competent authorities to carry out internal audits or have external audits.

11 Page 11 Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, Article 4 of the Norwegian Regulation of 31 January 2006 No. 103 incorporating Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 defines the competences of the NFSA and provides that the Customs shall assist the NFSA by carrying out these controls. According to additional information provided by the Customs during the mission, the Customs have legal competence to carry out inspections on behalf of other Norwegian authorities, including the NFSA, at the entry points. According to the Act on Customs Duties and Movement of Goods (Customs Act) of 21 December 2007 No. 119, Section 4-2(1) the Customs may detain or suspend the release of goods that are not cleared through customs 1. The Customs will contact the NFSA if a decision needs to be adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 745/2004. The mission team noted that most of the representatives of Customs met during the mission stated that they would seize and destroy any illegal products or restricted products, including products of animal origin without a decision adopted by the NFSA. Furthermore, the postal service would seize and return private consignments of products of animal origin detected in mail/parcels. According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, cooperation between the NFSA and Customs consists of regular meetings at the different levels. In addition, an agreement on information exchange between NFSA and the Customs has been drafted to cover the cooperation between the BIPs in Norway and the relevant local Customs office. According to additional information provided by the NFSA in the opening meeting there were, at the time of the mission, no similar agreements drafted for the cooperation between the local Customs and district offices of the NFSA without BIPs. The mission team noted that the cooperation at local level between the Customs and the NFSA personnel was established to a varying degree. The information provided to the local Customs was not the same throughout Norway. BIP Storskog road and BIP Oslo airport Gardermoen had forwarded to the Customs a table provided by the head office of the NFSA summarising the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 which has not yet been incorporated in the EEA Agreement. One district office visited, with no BIP, had initiated cooperation with the Customs on its own initiative and provided locally compiled information to the Customs summarising the requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 745/2004. According to information provided by the NFSA in the opening meeting, the system for import controls on personal consignments of products of animal origin had not been included in any internal or external audits at the time of the mission. Conclusions Full compliance with Article 4(3) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not be ensured since efficient and effective coordination between and within competent authorities involved in official controls on personal consignments of products of animal origin were not always provided for. 1 See Appendix 1: Customs and Excise Comments to Draft report from EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to Norway

12 Page Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system. Legal Requirements Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have access to a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Article 6 of the same Regulation requires the competent authorities to ensure that staff receives appropriate training and keep the staff updated in their area of competence. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the Customs is the only service involved in carrying out regular official controls on personal luggage at designated entry points. Customs officers 2 are involved in these controls. At Storskog road, five inspectors from the NFSA had been assisting the customs officers in intensified controls on personal luggage following the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in Russia earlier this year. It was further stated in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority that so far the NFSA had not organised any general foodstuffs-training in cooperation with the Customs. The Customs organise their own training program for their officials. Copies of the presentations used for this purpose was provided during the mission and the mission team noted that these presentations included information relevant for commercial imports of products of animal origin only, and did not include requirements laid down for private consignments of such products. Furthermore, it referred to outdated legislation for animal by-products such as hunting trophies. The mission team also noted that the customs officers at Oslo airport Gardermoen had received local training prior to an action week where focus was laid on controls on private consignments of animal origin in travellers luggage. Customs officers met during the mission had fair knowledge of the restrictions applicable to products of animal origin. However, at one of the entry points visited, representatives of the Customs stated that they had only started seizing smaller amounts of meat and dairy products detected in personal luggage after the NFSA had notified them of the ASF outbreak in Russia earlier this year. Furthermore, the Customs officers at this entry point stated that they did not seize canned meat based on information provided to them that such products were safe with regard to ASF and did not have to be seized. It was not possible to verify the source of this information during the mission, Conclusions Full compliance with Articles 4(2)(c) and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not always be ensured since staff performing official controls did not recognize all restricted products as such in line with requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 745/2004. Furthermore, the information provided during training of customs officers was not updated and did not include the requirements for private consignments of meat and dairy products for personal consumption as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 745/ Legislative and policy framework 3 Legal Requirements Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 requires Member States to ensure that, at all designated points of entry, the animal health conditions for imports of products of animal origin are brought to the attention of travelers arriving from third countries and 2 Number deleted. See Appendix 1: Customs and Excise Comments to Draft report from EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to Norway 3 See point 4 of Appendix 2: Reply from the NFSA; comments and corrective actions

13 Page 13 that international passenger transport operators should draw the attention of passengers to the animal health conditions for imports of products of animal origin. Article 4(3) of the same Regulation states that the person responsible for any personal consignment that is found to be in breach of the rules may, at the discretion of the competent authority be liable for the costs. Article 4(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have legal powers to carry out official controls and to take measures provided for. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, posters made according to the template in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 206/2009 have been forwarded to Norwegian airports and ports with international traffic and to the Norwegian consulate in Murmansk, together with the request that they should be displayed at a location sufficiently visible to travellers. In addition, posters picturing Russian meat and dairy products have been placed at the Customs border control post at Storskog road. An from the head office of the NFSA was sent to the regional offices on 11 May 2011, requesting that the district offices should verify that the posters had been placed at the airports, including guidelines for where the posters should be placed in order to be well visible. Other initiatives by the NFSA to inform the public of the animal health conditions for imports of products of animal origin has included arrangements during the Veterinary Week in 2009, periods of intensified controls at Oslo airport Gardermoen and Storskog road in addition to participation in tourism fairs in 2010 and According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the NFSA contacted Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, the only airline company with direct flights to Bulgaria from Norway, due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the Burgas region. The company agreed to inform the passengers about the import prohibition of certain animal products. According to additional information provided for by the NFSA during the mission, similar agreements were, at the time of the mission, not in place with other international passengers transport operators. The mission team noted that the posters were visible in most of the airports visited, however, at Oslo airport Gardermoen, the posters seen were partly hidden behind another sign. Article 3 of the Norwegian Regulation of 31 January 2006 No. 103 states that the NFSA may charge travellers for the costs for destroying seized items. The mission team noted that the travellers were not charged for the cost of destruction of seized items at any of the visited entry points. Conclusions Full compliance with Articles 3(1) and 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004could not be ensured since, in particular, one of the airports visited had placed the information partly hidden and since not all international passenger transport operators drew the attention of passengers to the animal health conditions for imports of products of animal origin. The NFSA has the legal powers to recover costs in line with requirements laid down in Article 4(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and Article 4(3) of regulation (EC) No 745/2004.

14 Page Organisation of the controls 4 Legal Requirements Article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States to ensure that controls are carried out regularly and on a risk basis. Article 8 of the same Regulation requires the competent authority to carry out official controls in accordance with documented procedures. Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 requires that the controls may be organised using a risk based approach, including, if judged to be necessary by the competent authority, the use of effective detection aids. Article 4(2) of the same Regulation requires the competent authority to seize and destroy all personal consignments which are identified as being in breach of the rules. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, the NFSA is not present at all designated entry points at all times. The Customs have access to schedules of international flights, cruise ships etc., and will be present at the entry points at relevant times and assists the NFSA by carrying out controls on personal luggage. According to the same information, there is no specific program for control of personal consignments of products of animal origin. The mission team noted that the information provided to the local Customs of relevant restrictions on personal consignments was not the same throughout Norway (See Chapter 4.1.1). In case of outbreaks of diseases, e.g. ASF in Russia, the NFSA will inform the Customs of the need for increased control frequency. The mission team noted that intensified controls had been carried out at three of the entry points visited, e.g. control of all travellers was carried out at the entry point at Storskog road from 8 to 13 April due to ASF outbreak in Russia. In 2010, the NFSA, in cooperation with the Customs, arranged 4 action days at Oslo airport Gardermoen and two action weeks at Storskog road. The NFSA staff at the BIPs located at these two entry points assisted the customs officers in these periods of intensified controls. Approximately 50 % of the travellers were bringing smaller or larger amounts of non-compliant consignments. In most cases, the Customs is responsible for the transport of products to the disposal facilities. However, at Oslo airport Gardermoen and Storskog road, seized and renounced goods are handed over to the official veterinarian at the BIPs there. The mission team noted that amnesty bins were available at Storskog. The Customs had scanners available for controls of personal luggage at all entry points visited. According to information provided by the NFSA in the reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, all international post arriving for distribution by the Norwegian Postal service, arrives initially at Oslo airport Gardermoen. The sorting and controls of express mail is carried out at the airport, while regular mail will be forwarded to the postal terminal visited during the mission. At the post terminal, representatives of the postal service, the NFSA and the Customs informed the mission team of the following possibilities for products of animal products identified in mail/parcels: 1) Mail containing products of animal origin identified by the postal service: The consignments would be detained by the postal service who would notify the receiver that the consignment would be returned to the sender unless a permit from 4 See point 4 of Appendix 2: Reply from the NFSA; comments and corrective actions

15 Page 15 the NFSA to release it could be presented within two weeks. According to information provided by a representative of the NFSA, such permits were issued for e.g. small consignments of fishery products. Detained products were not stored separate from other mail during the max two-week storage prior to a possible return of the consignment to the sender 5. 2) The Postal service suspects that mail contains products of animal origin: The consignments would be forwarded to the Customs for further control. 3) Customs identifies products of animal origin: The products would be seized and destroyed with no need for a decision adopted by the NFSA. 4) Customs identifies larger consignments of meat and milk products: Customs would contact the BIP Oslo port which would adopt decisions for the consignments. The mission team noted that the fourth alternative had been used also for products of animal origin identified in mail that had reached other parts of the country. In these cases, the products had been sent to BIP Oslo port for a decision to be adopted using the legal basis applicable to commercial consignments as laid down in Council Directive 97/78/EC. NFSA stated in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority that the results of official controls were known only for two entry points where a BIP is located, Storskog road and Oslo airport Gardermoen and that the NFSA had no general overview of the results of controls carried out by Customs. According to additional information from regional representatives of the Customs met during the mission, regional records were kept for all products detained and destroyed by the Customs. No records of products detained and/or returned to sender were kept by the postal service. Conclusions 6 Controls were organised in line with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, using a risk based approach with intensified controls in relation to outbreaks of diseases and the use of available detection aids. Full compliance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 could not be ensured since not all personal consignments identified as being in breach of the rules were seized and destroyed. Full compliance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not be ensured since written procedures issued by the head office of the NFSA were not provided to all staff carrying out checks. 6 CONTROL OF DISPOSAL OF CATERING WASTE FROM INTERNATIONAL MEANS OF TRANSPORT 7 Legal Requirements Article 16 of Directive 97/78/EC foresees the destruction of kitchen waste unloaded from means of transport operating internationally and point 5(3) of the Annex to Commission 5 See Appendix 1: Customs and Excise Comments to Draft report from EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to Norway 6 See Appendix 1: Customs and Excise Comments to Draft report from EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to Norway 7 See point 5 of Appendix 2: Reply from the NFSA; comments and corrective actions

16 Page 16 Decision 2001/812/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 lay down further provisions regarding the arrangements for the disposal of such waste. 6.1 Competent authorities Designation of competent authorities, coordination and cooperation between competent authorities involved. Legal Requirements Article 4(3) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 provide for efficient and effective coordination between competent authorities involved in official controls and efficient and effective coordination and cooperation between the different units involved. Article 4(6) of same Regulation requires the competent authorities to carry out internal audits or have external audits. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, two competent authorities are involved in the official controls on catering waste, the NFSA and the KLIF. KLIF has delegated the competence to approve incinerators according to Directive 2000/76/EC to the County governors of Norway. It was further set out in the reply to the pre-mission document that the responsibility for handling of catering waste in ports has been delegated from the environmental authorities to the port operators and the NFSA is responsible for administering the national animal by-product (ABP) regulation regarding human and animal health related to the handling of catering waste from third countries. According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, some cooperation had been established locally between the NFSA and the County governors. However, according to the information provided, only one joint inspection was carried out in 2009 on disposal of catering waste. The mission team noted that in one of the ports visited, a waste management plan had been established and submitted to the relevant County governor in According to a representative of the port authority, the waste management plan had been updated several times since then. The mission team noted that the NFSA had not been involved at any stage in the work on this plan. The section for import export of the head office of the NFSA had provided guidelines for the NFSA personnel at BIPs on handling of catering waste from vehicles in international traffic. The mission team noted that in ports with BIPs visited, the responsible officials of the NFSA were aware of the system in place for handling catering waste in accordance with the guidelines issued by the head office. However, in one port without a BIP visited, the local NFSA had not established any cooperation with the port authorities and was not aware of how such waste was being handled. According to information provided by the NFSA during the mission, the system in place for official controls on catering waste in particular, or official controls on ABPs in general had not been included in any internal or external audits at the time of the mission. Conclusions Full compliance with Article 4(3) and 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not be ensured since efficient and effective coordination between and within competent authorities involved in official controls were not always provided for.

17 Page Adequacy of personnel involved in the control system. Legal Requirements Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have access to a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Article 6 of the same Regulation requires the competent authorities to ensure that staff receives appropriate training and keep the staff updated in their area of competence Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, no joint training has been organised by the different authorities. The topic has been presented in general courses and meetings and via an ABP network group within the NFSA. The mission team noted that the staff of the NFSA had fair knowledge of the requirements for handling of catering waste. However, the mission team noted that not all noncompliances had been identified during official controls carried out by the local NFSA on the handling of catering waste. The port authorities and representatives of a County governor met during the mission were not aware of the relevant requirements for catering waste from means of transport operating internationally laid down in the Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. Conclusions Full compliance with Article 4(2)(c) and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could not always be ensured since not all staff carrying out official controls related to handling of catering waste was aware of all relevant requirements. 6.2 Legislative and policy framework Legal Requirements Article 4(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires the competent authority to ensure that they have legal powers to carry out official controls and to take measures provided for. Findings According to information provided by the NFSA in its reply to the pre-mission document of the Authority, both the NFSA and the KLIF have legal basis to adopt decisions with regard to unloading of catering waste from means of transport operating internationally. According to a representative of a port authority met during the mission, they had legal basis to instruct the arriving vessels on how to handle waste and could, in case of identifying non-compliances, forward the case to the police for further prosecution. Conclusions The competent authorities responsible for the controls on catering waste have the legal powers to carry out official controls and to take measures provided for as required by Article 4(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 882/ Organisation of the controls Legal Requirements Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires Member States to ensure that controls are carried out regularly and on a risk basis. Article 8 of the same Regulation requires the competent authority to carry out official controls in accordance with documented