EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANCO)/2007-7258 - MR Final FINAL REPORT OF A MISSION CARRIED OUT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA FROM 7 TO 15 MARCH 2007 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE CONTROL SYSTEMS IN PLACE GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION OF FISHERY AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR EXPORT TO THE EUROPEAN UNION Clarifications provided by the Competent Authorities of Papua New Guinea are given as footnotes, in bold, italic, type, to the relevant part of the report 21/09/07-35285

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 1.1. Background... 3 1.2. Mission objective and proceedings... 4 2. MAIN FINDINGS... 5 2.1. Legislation... 5 2.2. Competent Authority... 5 2.3. Official controls... 6 2.4. Laboratories... 10 2.5. Health export certification of fish and FP to the EU... 11 2.6. RASFF notifications... 12 3. CONCLUSIONS... 12 4. CLOSING MEETING... 12 5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CA OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA... 13 5.1. Legislation... 13 5.2. Competent authority... 13 5.3. Official controls... 13 5.4. Laboratories... 14 5.5. Traceability... 14 5.6. Official certification... 14 6. COMPETENT AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS... 14 ANNEX... 15 2

1. INTRODUCTION The mission took place in Papua New Guinea (PNG) from 7 to 15 March 2007. The mission team (MT) comprised two inspectors from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) 1. This mission was scheduled as part of the FVO s planned mission programme. 1.1. Background 1.1.1. Summary of previous mission results The specific conditions for import of fishery products (FP) from Papua New Guinea are laid down in Commission Decision 2002/859/EC 2. The last FVO mission on FP was carried out in 2000. The objectives of this earlier mission (DG/SANCO/1185/2000 3 ) was to carry out an evaluation of the systems of control of FP originating in PNG and intended for export to the EU, with the view to deciding whether PNG can be added to part I of the list of third countries approved for export to the EU, set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC. During this mission serious shortcomings were identified regarding the reliability of the official control system. The National Fisheries Laboratory was not well equipped and no chemical tests on FP and water were requested by the CA. Also the visited vessels had serious hygiene and maintenance problems. After the mission, satisfactory written assurances were received by Commission services in respect of all recommendations and consequently Papua New Guinea was placed in Part I of the Annex to Commission Decision 97/296/EC. 1.1.2. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) notifications The following notification, linked with fish and FP originating in PNG, was received from the RASFF. RASFF NOTIFICATION Country of Origin: Papua New Guinea REF DATE PRODUCT SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 2005/CDB 09/08/2005 Defrost tuna loins (Thunus albacares) Carbon Monoxide treatment 1.1.3. Production and trade information The total exports to EU Member States (MS) of FP from PNG in 2005 and 2006 (January to November) were, respectively, 19,224 and 12,746 tonnes (EUROSTAT data). According to information provided by the National Fisheries Authority (NFA), about 15,000 tonnes of FP were exported to the EU in 2005. Exported are mainly tuna, mostly canned and with some vacuum packed frozen. The main MS of destination are the United Kingdom, Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Greece. No aquaculture products are presently exported to the EU. In the PNG response to the pre-mission questionnaire no imported fish or FP for processing onward export to the EU were included. The import of FP from PNG is authorised 4 from six land based establishments (five processing plants and one cold store) and 41 freezer vessels; no factory vessels are 1 2 A list of abbreviations and special terms is drawn up in Part 1 of the Annex of this report. All legal references, which can be found in Part 2 of the Annex, refer, where applicable, to the latest amended version. 3 Report available on the internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.htm. 4 Update of Decision 2002/859/EC (list of establishments and freezer vessels published on 30/10/2006). 3

presently listed. No fish auction or wholesale markets involved in the export to the EU operate in PNG. PNG presently receives technical assistance through the European Union Rural Coastal Fisheries Development Project (EURCFDP), the AusAID (strengthening the National Fisheries College), the Asian Development Bank (the Fisheries Development Project and the Coastal Fisheries Management and Development Project), and the Infofish pilot project on value-added tuna products. Two international nongovernmental organisations support a community-based management programme (CBM) in the fish sector. 1.2. Mission objective and proceedings The objective of the mission was to assess whether the Competent Authority (CA) is capable of guaranteeing that the special conditions governing imports into the EU of FP originating from PNG, as laid down in Decision 2002/859/EC, are respected. In order to achieve this objective, the MT evaluated the organisation of the CA and its capacity to implement provisions considered at least as equivalent to the Community requirements of Regulations (EC) No 854/2004, No 853/2004, No 852/2004 and No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the production of FP intended for export to the EU, hereinafter referred to as the Community hygiene package. In pursuit of this objective, the mission team proceeded as follows: an opening meeting was held on 7 March 2007 with the Central Competent Authority (CCA). At this meeting, the objective of, and the itinerary for, the mission were confirmed by the inspection team, and additional information required for its satisfactory completion was requested; representatives from NFA accompanied the inspection team during the whole mission; the following sites were visited: COMPETENT AUTHORITY Central office NFA 1 Port Moresby LABORATORIES INVOLVED IN THE OFFICIAL CONTROL FP and Water Microbiological (FP and Water/ice) and Histamine analysis Analysis for heavy metals in FP 1 NAQIA at Port Moresby 2 NAL at Lae PRIMARY PRODUCTION Fishing vessels 4 In Port Moresby Landing sites 3 Port Moresby (public), Wewak (public) and Madang (private) OTHER FACILITIES Freezer/reefer vessels 7 Wewak and Madang Cold stores 1 Madang FP processing establishment 4 Port Moresby, Wewak, Madang (cannery) and Lae 4

2. MAIN FINDINGS 2.1. Legislation Considering the new Community hygiene package which applies from 1 January 2006, the mission team (MT) paid particular attention to the ability of the CA to deliver the required standards of these new Community rules with regard to FP destined for EU export. From the PNG Standards for Fish and Fishery Products (PNGS) used to control and certify FP intended for export to the EU, the MT observed that the current standards, found in the PNGS (revised in November 2006) includes provisions which can be generally considered at least equivalent to Community requirements. However, the MT noted discrepancies with Community rules, such as: Concerning water testing, PNGS does not include the testing for Enterococci as foreseen in Council Directive 98/83/EC, Annex I, part A. The number of coliforms per 100 ml is not limited to 0 as foreseen in the Directive 98/83/EC, Annex I, part C in the PNGS; As far as contaminants are concerned, the PNGS do not include provisions concerning limits and sampling methods for PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), dioxin, lead and cadmium in FP, as foreseen in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, Annex, Section 5 and 3 and in Commission Directive 2001/22/EC; PNGS do not cover poisonous fish or FP derived from poisonous fish as mentioned in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Annex III, section VIII, Chapter V, E, 1 and in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, Annex III, Chapter II, G, 1; PNGS do not include the species sensitive for histamine formation mentioned in Community legislation: Scombridae, Clupeidae, Engraulidae, Coryifenidae, Pomatomidea and Scombresosidae as foreseen in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, Annex I, Chapter 1, point 1.25; PNGS do not foresee the organoleptic checks as mentioned in the Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96; Water temperature in taps: the PNGS do not include provisions for the presence of hot and cold running water for wash-hand basins as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, Annex II, Chapter I, 4). 2.2. Competent Authority The CCA in PNG is the NFA of the Ministry of Fisheries. It is organised as a central administration based in Port Moresby. The CCA is responsible for the approval for export to the EU of FP establishments, for the licence (approval) of establishments and freezer vessels and for the issuance of the public health certificates for the export of FP to the EU. There are five Fisheries Inspectors based in Port Moresby who carry out official controls of the establishments all over PNG. One Export and Certification Officer based in Port Moresby is responsible for the issuing of the health certificates for export to the EU. Some of the competencies for the official controls on FP destined for the export to the EU have been delegated to the Provinces where the Provincial Fishery Officers (PFOs) sign the health certificates. The PFOs do not carry out the inspections or audits in the establishments. 5

The Fisheries Inspectors have a university degree while the 30 PFOs have a more technical education (e.g. the National Fisheries College at Kavieng). The PFOs are embedded in the administration of the Provincial Government. They have legal power to seize or detain FP, but no evidence was seen of the PFOs exercising them. As concerns the CCA, it is foreseen by the law the NFA has the legal power to inspect, assess and take action in case of non-compliance with Community standards of establishments exporting FP. 2.3. Official controls 2.3.1. Official control activities 2.3.1.1. Registration/approval procedures The PNGS defines the licensing/approval procedure of a fish processing and a fish export establishment. The licence is renewed annually. The MT observed that these licences show only the NFA licence number which is not the same as the approval number on the consolidated list of establishments approved for export to the EU. Furthermore there was no document available showing the link between these two numbers. The licence documents themselves do not specifically refer to export of FP to the EU. It is foreseen by the NFA to renew annually the licences. Nevertheless the MT observed that establishments continued to export fish to the EU with an expired licence. Furthermore some licences were issued retrospectively. The renewals of licences were found to be often issued without a preliminary inspection of the establishment. During the initial meeting the CCA informed the MT that the approval for one establishment on the EU list had been revoked but the competent Commission service was not yet been informed about this withdrawal. The PNGS foresees an annual renewal of the licences for vessels. The MT found licences on the vessels which were valid. 2.3.1.2. Written procedures The PNGS, the NFA Procedure Manual and the Quality Manual for Food Safety Management System Certification lay down documented procedures for official controls. The Fisheries Inspectors use checklists and forms for their routine evaluation of compliance of establishments approved for export to the EU and vessels. A plan related to official sampling at establishment level has not been set up by the CA and as a result, the sampling is very irregular. 2.3.1.3. Checks on the hygiene conditions of landing sites The MT was informed by the CA that in one location the landing site was inspected at the same time as the adjacent cold store. In none of the landing sites visited there was documentary evidence of official sampling or controls on the microbiological quality of water and FP. Organoleptic checks were not carried out at landing sites. The regular checks on hygiene conditions are not carried out as foreseen in the Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, Annex III, chapter I, 1 a. Several deficiencies were observed concerning hygiene practices of the landing site personnel carrying out unloading of FP (dirty crates not being washed before being used, rusty chutes, workers walk on fish, use of hooks, no running potable water, FP transported in crates without cover or lids and following transport from landing sites thawed fish were refrozen on arrival at an establishment). 6

2.3.1.4. Inspection of vessels Fishing vessels The only fishing vessels visited were based in Port Moresby. They are inspected by the NFA Fisheries Inspectors approximately every year. The MT noted that since December 2006 the inspection reports are more complete than before that date. The main non-compliances are noted by the Inspectors and a corrective action programme is established. However the MT observed that the procedure is not effective because the owners of the vessels do not, in many cases, appear to correct these non compliances, as evidenced by subsequent follow-up inspections. The main findings observed by the MT were: rust and flaking paint in the holds, no wash-hand basins at gutting point, wooden boards for gutting, rusty knives, lack of temperature monitoring records, no regular pest control and unhygienic storage of waste. Freezer vessels Freezer vessels are licensed by the NFA on a yearly basis. The MT observed that there was no official assessment of the compliance of the vessel with the national and Community public health minimum requirements prior to licensing. The freezer vessels are inspected by the Fisheries Inspectors once a year on average. The MT noted that one vessel had not been visited for over two years. During the audit visits some Fisheries Inspectors take into account mainly the obvious hygiene aspects of the vessel and omit to examine the structural equipment, HACCP plan and the record keeping obligations of the crew. The MT found that the inspection reports of the CA do not mention important non-compliances such as: the lack of temperature recording devices for the holds and unprotected wooden surfaces all over the inside of the holds of the reefer vessels. There was only one fishing company in PNG that had started to install temperature recording devices in its freezer vessels, this work began in January 2007. The inspection procedure of the CA does not envisage the verification of the suitability of chemicals for FP used on board vessels (defoamer/foam reducer for the brine, ingredients in the salt for the brine and some painting materials). The MT observed that some vessels have failed previous NFA audits. At the following inspection visit the non-compliances had not yet been corrected by the vessel owner. Nevertheless new licences for vessels were issued by the NFA. The MT noted that at this level the enforcement procedure was not effective. The MT visited three reefer vessels and four freezer vessels and the following non-compliances were noted: no documents of calibration of probes, no HACCP plan available on some vessels, medical certificates not available for all staff, bad maintenance in some toilets, storage of dirty salt bags in holds, in one HACCP plan the temperature for dry storing of fish was indicated with -12 C or below, no microbiological testing of water and poor maintenance in the area of the hatches with risk of contamination by fuel. 2.3.1.5. Inspection of land based establishments The CA has a control system in place based on documented control procedures, with checklists and forms for the regular inspection of establishments approved for export to the EU. The MT was provided with documentary evidence that regular inspections are carried out by Fisheries Inspectors, and that most of the shortcomings are identified. However unsuitable temperature records and unfavourable results of 7

analyses (own checks) carried out by the Food Business Operator (FBO) were rarely followed up by the Fisheries Inspectors. In some establishments the frequency of the visits was below the frequency set in the NFA procedures. The MT was told by the CA that almost all NFA inspection visits to establishments were pre-announced. Five out of six establishments approved for export to the EU (cold store included) were visited by the MT. Corrective action plans had been drafted by the Fisheries Inspectors following their visits. These actions plans were presented to the FBO and they took note of this. However the MT observed that the procedure is not effective because the owners of the establishments do not, in many cases, appear to correct these non compliances, as evidenced by subsequent follow-up inspections. Other than one establishment approved for export to the EU which could be considered as partially compliant, all establishments visited by the MT are not in compliance with Community legislation. The main deficiencies noted by the MT were: Layout of processing areas not in compliance. Different stages of the production process are not sufficiently separated permitting cross contamination from dirty production areas to hygiene sensitive areas; Inadequate walls, flooring, ceiling, equipment, tools, doors (uneven flooring with stagnant water, walls/doors not smooth and easy to clean, rusty surfaces in the processing areas, presence of wood, unsuitable ceilings and walls, conveyor belts for FP in very poor state of maintenance and therefore, no longer smooth and easy to clean and disinfect); Doors and openings not pest proof, with consequent presence of insects in the processing areas; Packaging material storage rooms not pest proof and poorly kept, card boxes not protected from getting dirty; Water condensation with leaking from the ceiling in working and storage areas; Lack of hot water in the wash-hand basins. Insufficient number of wash-hand basins in one processing area (eight basins for 600 workers) or no basins at all; Poor hygiene practices (such as: fish offal in contact with skinned fish); Ice production machine not sufficiently protected from contamination from air, soil and insects. The equipment itself was partially rusty; Absence of automatic temperature recording device in four of five FP establishments. The device in the fifth establishment had only been installed in March 2007. The records for recording of the temperatures in the establishments were not always complete; Poor traceability system in one establishment, with no documentary evidence for the identification of the suppliers of batches of FP exported to the EU. In one establishment the traceability system permitted to trace the FP back to frozen fish from a non EU listed freezer vessel. The MT found, nevertheless, evidence of imported FP that were processed in establishments in PNG and re-exported to the EU; In one establishment raw material, by-products and finished FP ready to export were stored in the same cold store; 8

Temperature records of frozen FP showing values above the limits foreseen in Community and national legislation were noted in several establishments visited. In PNG there is only one cold store approved by the CA for export to the EU. The MT visited this cold store. At the time of the visit no FP was in storage. This facility had been visited last by the Fisheries Inspectors in February 2007 and they noted then that deficiencies observed in 2005 were still outstanding. The MT noted that processed and vacuum wrapped tuna loins produced in one fish processing establishment approved for export to the EU are blast frozen in the cold store that carries another EU approval number. The cold store is about 30 kilometres away from this fish processing establishment. These vacuum wrapped tuna loins carried the EU approval number of the fish processing plant, that is to say the number of an establishment that has not done the final processing step (the blast freezing) on the product. These frozen tuna loins leave the cold store directly for Europe. This cold store visited was not in compliance with Community legislation. The main deficiencies noted by the MT were: The MT noted that in cold storeroom 3 the temperature on 10 March 2007 was not in compliance with Community or PNG standards; One CCP in the HACCP plan relates to the temperature of storage of frozen FP and is defined to be at -9 C or below; Floors and crates were very dirty; Packaging material not protected from contamination. 2.3.2. Official controls on fishery products 2.3.2.1. Sampling procedures The PNGS includes sampling procedures for microbiological control, heavy metals (mercury), TVB-N and histamine, but it does not include sampling forms and details on sampling material and equipment, sample handling and transport. 2.3.2.2. Organoleptic examinations and freshness indicators (TVB-N & TMA-N) These controls are not carried out by the CA at any level. 2.3.2.3. Histamine testing The MT saw some results on histamine sensitive FP exported to the EU in all establishments visited. The fluorometric method was used. Almost all values were below 10 mg/kg. A result with a value of 60mg/kg on own checks was only found once in one establishment. A total of nine official samples had been taken since November 2006 as foreseen in the Regulation (EC) 2073/2005, Annex I, chapter 1, 1.25. 2.3.2.4. Testing for contaminants FP from two establishments had been tested for heavy metals (Cadmium, Mercury and Lead) in January 2007. The analyses were conducted at the National Analysis Laboratory (NAL) which is accredited in accordance to the APHA standard. The values of the results were very low and within the limits permitted in Community legislation. Official samples for pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are not carried out. The CA intends to send samples for this testing to laboratories in Australia. 9

2.3.2.5. Microbiological checks These checks are carried out but the frequency is low. The following parameters are analysed: Total Plate Count (TPC), Total coliforms, E. Coli, Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus. The MT noted at the National Agriculture and Quarantine Authority Laboratory (NAQIA) a test result on FP that was positive for Salmonella. This result was confirmed by the Central Public Health Laboratory. The information on the report of the test results did not show from which establishment the sample had been send. There was no investigation in place on the origin of the sample nor on the destination of the FP. At the end of the FVO mission the CA provided, at the request of the MT, the name of the establishment of origin of the sample. The sample had been received 2 February 2007 and the analysis was completed 23 February. The report was signed 26 February and received by the NFA on 6 March. 2.3.2.6. Testing for parasites Controls for parasites are not carried out by the CA. 2.3.2.7. Official controls on water and ice used in the FP production chain The water supply in the approved establishments is provided either from the public supply or from private wells. Some own-checks and official controls on water and ice in approved establishments are carried out. Official samples are analysed by both laboratories (NAQIA for microbiology and NAL for chemical analyses). The following microbiological parameters were tested: TPC, Total coliforms, E. coli and Salmonella. All the results of analyses on water and ice seen by the MT were compliant to the Council Directive 98/83/EC. 2.4. Laboratories The MT visited two laboratories in charge of official controls on FP: NAQIA in Port Moresby and the NAL in Lae. Both laboratories are public. A. The National Agriculture and Quarantine Authority This laboratory carries out microbiological analyses on foodstuff and water. The laboratory is working towards an accreditation since at least 2000, but the accreditation procedure has not officially begun yet. It has three laboratory specialists. One of them has been trained in testing for Histamine in a private fish processing plant in PNG. The designated accreditation body is the PNG Laboratory Accreditation Scheme. This laboratory carries out analyses on FP for: Histamine, E. coli, Staph. Aureus, Salmonella and Listeria. And on water for: coliforms, E. coli and Salmonella. The method of analysis for Histamine is the fluorometric AOC method 5. The MT was informed that this method will not be included in the scope of the accreditation. The laboratory carries out analyses on FP and water collected in establishments approved for export to the EU. On average seven FP samples and five water samples per week are analysed for several clients: the CA, other public bodies and the private sector. The quality manual is still in draft format. The laboratory has only recently 5 In their response to the draft report, the Authorities of PNG restated that they currently use the fluorometric method for histamine testing, which is internationally recognized. 10

started to take part in proficiency testing but the results had not been received at the time of the MT visit. The temperatures of the freezer and the fridge are not monitored. The MT found unlabelled samples in the freezer and noted some deficiencies regarding traceability of samples. There is no method for calibration. B. National Analysis Laboratory (NAL) This laboratory is accredited since 1987 for analysis for heavy metals. The accreditation is based on the APHA standards. The NAL carries out analyses on samples from numerous clients of the private and public sector. The laboratory takes part in a proficiency test for Cadmium and Mercury in FP. The NFA submits FP and water samples for testing for heavy metals. The methods used are ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) and the Graphite Furnace-AAS. The microbiological department of this laboratory carried out analyses on swabs for the NFA. Samples for testing for PCB are sent to a laboratory in Australia. The MT noted that the NAL is a professional working laboratory with well maintained equipment. 2.5. Health export certification of fish and FP to the EU Before issuing the Export Health Certificate the CCA creates another document, called the Certificate of Fitness for Export of Fish and Fishery Products (FC) that precedes the Export Health Certificate. It is the FBO who maintains the book with numbered sheets of FC. The FBO contacts directly the CCA in order to get an export approval number by fax. Once the export approval number has been provided, the FBO produces the FC and presents it to a PFO for signature. Based on the FC the PFO signs the Export Health Certificate which includes the export approval number. The MT was also shown some of these certificates without any export approval number. It is a main finding that in PNG the procedure for issuing of EU Export Health Certificates is neither in compliance with Community requirements nor with the PNGS. The MT noted two originals of Health Certificates for the same FP export consignment. The MT noted three copies of Health Certificates (one in Dutch, one in German and one in French) without translation, signed by the PFO, languages of which he has not enough knowledge to understand the text of these documents. The MT noted one instance of a Community Health Certificate, bearing a reference to the specific conditions applicable to the import into the EU of FP from Taiwan 6, having been used for PNG FP exports. This further demonstrates the lack of understanding of PNG officials of precisely what they are signing. The PFOs met by the MT have an inadequate knowledge of public health and hygiene of FP. They have had no formal training on fish hygiene in recent years. Training is mainly done on the job by other NFA staff and is not documented. The PFO signs the Export Health Certificate on behalf of the CA without direct knowledge of the public health conditions of the establishment, and the MT saw no documentary evidence of official checks carried out by the PFO on the FP certified. 6 Commission Decision 94/766/EC. 11

The MT noted numerous Export Health Certificates issued during a period (August 2005 to August 2006) for an establishment that had no valid licence to export at that time. Certification is therefore not in compliance with Council Directive 96/93/EC on the certification of animals and animal products, in particular with Art.3, point 2. 2.6. RASFF notifications The MT was provided with documentary evidence on the actions and investigations undertaken by the CA concerning the RASFF notification reference 2005 CDB on the use of carbon monoxide. Following receipt of this RASFF, all establishments approved for export to the EU were informed that carbon monoxide treatment of FP is not permitted for produce intended for export to the EU. The establishment which had used the carbon monoxide was de-listed from the EU list one year later. 3. CONCLUSIONS The absence of the relevant requirements from the PNG legislation implies that the CA can neither impose nor enforce the EU requirements regarding: water testing, contaminants, poisonous fish, species sensitive for histamine, organoleptic checks and water temperature in taps of the FP processing establishment. Exports in 2006 to the EU took place from non-approved establishments, which shows the unreliability of the official control and certification system. The CCA, the NFA, has a system of inspection in place that produces inspection reports which are detailed. Corrective action plans are produced by Fishery Inspectors but are not implemented by the FBOs. This renders the enforcement and the official controls ineffective. Most establishments and vessels are non-compliant with current Community rules (non compliant HACCP plans, no temperature recording devices, non-compliant layouts of establishments, traceability system in place non-compliant, poor hygiene conditions and practices, ). The current procedure of issuing Export Health Certificates can not be considered as reliable. The signing officers have a low level of training and are unaware of what is being signed. This results in a very low level of official control on FP exported to the EU. The MT also noted laboratory results whose values were above the permitted limits (e.g. Salmonella in FP), without any corrective actions being taken by the CA. This poses a potential hazard to public health. Given all of the above the CCA in PNG is not in position to deliver the guarantees laid down in the health certificate annexed to the Decision 2002/859/EC 7. In addition such a situation leads to consider that imminent and serious risks for consumer health cannot be excluded with regard to fishery products imported from Papua New Guinea. 4. CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 15 March 2007 with the CCA, in which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the mission were presented by the MT. At this meeting, the CCA did not show disagreement concerning the deficiencies identified by the MT. The weaknesses of the CA for the enforcement of non-compliances in the establishments were discussed. 7 From 1 st May 2007 Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 amended by Regulation (EC) No 1664/2006. 12

Furthermore, the CCA provided documents on the positive Salmonella laboratory result which permitted trace back of the sample to the establishment of origin. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CA OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA The CCA should provide Commission services with a detailed action plan, including a timetable for its completion within 25 working days of receipt of the report, in order to address the following recommendations for FP intended for export to the EU: 5.1. Legislation With regard to controlling and certifying FP intended for export to the EU, the CA should update the current standards applicable in order to ensure equivalence with Community standards on potable water (Directive 98/83/EC), on contaminants (Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, Annex, Section 5 and 3 and Commission Directive No 2001/22/EC), on hygiene (Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and 853/2004), on sensitive species for histamine formation (Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005), on organoleptic checks (Regulation (EC) No 2406/96) and on official controls (Regulations (EC) No 854/2004). 5.2. Competent authority The CA should ensure that staffs performing official controls are sufficiently trained and qualified. 5.3. Official controls 5.3.1. Official control activities The CA should ensure that deficiencies in approved establishments and vessels are properly addressed and that a proper follow-up is effectively ensured. The CA has to provide guarantees that they have real power to stop FP export to the EU originating from establishments and vessels for which standards are not providing guarantees at least equivalent to those offered by the EU requirements as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 Article 12.2. 5.3.2. Control of landing sites The CA should carry out regular checks on the hygiene conditions at the landing sites in line with the Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, Annex III, chapter I, 1a and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, Annex II, Section VIII, chapter II, 1. 5.3.3. Approval of establishments and vessels The CA should ensure that only those establishments and vessels providing standards at least equivalent to Community requirements are to be kept on the list of establishments and vessels approved for export to the EU, with an accurate description of the activities for which each establishment and/or vessel is approved, in accordance with articles 12, point 2 and 3 and Art 15 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. 5.3.4. Analyses of water The CA should ensure that the quality of water used in establishments is checked on the basis of requirements at least equivalent to the relevant sampling, microbiological and chemical parameters of Directive 98/83/EC. 13

5.3.5. Organoleptic checks The CA should carry out random organoleptic checks on FP at all stages of production, processing and distribution in line with the Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, Annex III, chapter II, A. 5.3.6. Analyses of fishery products The CA should ensure that FP exported to the EU meet the standards equivalent to the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, in particular those of Annex III Chapter II points from A to G included of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004. 5.4. Laboratories a. The CA should designate laboratories that operate and are assessed and accredited in accordance with Community standards, as prescribed in Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 or, for an interim period, designate laboratories not accredited, provided that the laboratories meet standards equivalent to the requirements of Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005; b. The CA should ensure that testing methods used in laboratories meet standards equivalent to those laid down in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, and the use of alternative microbiological testing methods should be validated in accordance with Article 5 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005. 5.5. Traceability The CA has to guarantee that traceability of FP to be exported to the EU is ensured through all the information containing in the health certificate accompanying the FP to the EU and issued on the basis of the Council Directive 96/93. 5.6. Official certification Export Health Certificates should be issued according to the requirements of Annex VI, point 2 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Council Directive 96/93. 6. COMPETENT AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS The action plan provided by the CA concerning the recommendations can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_papuanewguinea_7258_2007.pdf 14

1. Abbreviations and special terms AAS APHA CCA CA EC EU Establishment approved for export to the EU EURCFDP FBO/s FC FP FVO HACCP ISO MT NAL NAQIA NFA PAH PCB PFO/s PNG PNGS ppm RASFF SANCO SOP TMA-N TPC TVB-N ANNEX Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometers American Public Health Association Central Competent Authority Competent Authority European Community European Union Establishment approved by the CA to export fish and FP to the European Union European Union Rural Coastal Fisheries Development Project Food Business Operator/s Certificate of Fitness for Export of Fish and Fishery Products Fishery Products Food and Veterinary Office Hazard Analyses Critical Control Point International Organisation for Standardisation Mission team National Analysis Laboratory The National Agriculture and Quarantine Authority Laboratory National Fisheries Authority Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Provincial Fishery Officer/s Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Standards for Fish and Fishery Products Parts per million Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed Health and Consumers Protection Directorate General Standard Operating Procedures Trimethylamine Nitrogen Total Plate Count Total Volatile Basic Nitrogen 2. Community Acts quoted in the report European legislation 8 Official Journal (OJ) Title Commission Decision 98/140/EC L 38, 12.2.1998, p. 14 Commission Decision 98/140/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 third countries. 8 Community legislation (Internet): http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_lif.html 15

Commission Decision 97/296EC Commission Decision 2002/859/EC Commission Decision 1994/766/EC L 122, 14.05.1997, p. 21 L 301, 5.11.2002, p. 33 L 305, 30.11.1994, p. 31 COMMISSION DECISION 97/296/EC of 22 April 1997 drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorized for human consumption Commission Decision 2002/859/EC of 29 October 2002 laying down specific conditions for imports of fishery products from Papua New Guinea Commission Decision of 21 November 1994 laying down special conditions governing the import of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Taiwan Council Directive 96/23/EC L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10 Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products. Council Directive 98/83/EC L 330, 5.12.1998, p.32 Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 Commission Directive 2001/22/EC European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1664/2006 L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1 European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. L 364, 20.12.2006, p.5 L 278, 23.10.2001, p. 6 L 77/, 16.3.2001, p14 L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1 L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1 Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 3 L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55 Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 22 L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 206 Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 83 L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1 Corrigendum OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 2 L 334, 23.12.1996, p.1 L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 1 L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 27 L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 83 L 320, 18.11.2006, p. 13 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 of 22 October 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8 March 2001 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. 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. Council regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of November 1996 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down transitional arrangements for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1664/2006 of 6 November 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards implementing measures for certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and repealing certain implementing measures 3. Legal basis for the mission The mission was carried out under the general provisions of Community legislation and, in particular: Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 16