© FSAI

Administrative Assistance and Cooperation – a role for FLEP?

FLEP MeetingBfR, Berlin 18th-19th February 2015

Dorothy Guina Dornan

© FSAI

Overview

• Legal framework

• Shortcomings

• How to address these

• Role for FLEP?

© FSAI

Legal framework

Regulation (EC) No 882/2004: Title IV Articles 34-40• Where the outcome of official controls requires

action in more than one MS, CAS must provide each other with administrative assistance

• Assistance on request• Assistance without request• Assistance in the event of non-compliance

• Designated liaison bodies at MS level• Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission• Joint on-the-spot inspections

© FSAI

Administrative Assistance

• Assistance on request• When a MS requires information and documentation

to enable verification of compliance, it must be provided by the requested MS(s)

• Assistance without request• When a MS has information on non-compliances that

may have implications for another MS(s), it must pass that information on without delay. The receiving MS(s) must investigate and inform originating MS of the results of the measures taken

© FSAI

• Assistance in the event of non-compliance• Where during transport or at the MS of destination,

non-compliances are identified which pose a risk to human /animal health or are a serious non-compliance with food/feed law, the CA must notify the MS of dispatch without delay. The receiving MS must investigate, take all necessary measures and notify the CA of the MS who notified of the official controls carried out, the decisions taken and the reasons for such decisions

© FSAI

Administrative Assistance

• Liaison bodies• MS must designate one or more liaison bodies • Assist and coordinate communication between CAs and the

transmission and reception of requests for assistance• MS must inform the Commission of these bodies and their

contact details

• Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission

• Must coordinate without delay the action undertaken by MS, when it becomes aware of activities that are, or appear to be contrary to feed or food law and are of particular interest at Community level

• Inspection, in collaboration with MS• Request intensification of official controls in MS of dispatch

© FSAI

Exchange of Information

RASFF TRACES

Administrative

Assistance and

Cooperation

Administrative

Assistance and

Cooperation

Regulation 178/2002Regulation 16/2011SOPs

Regulation 97/78Article 24: Reinforced measures GuidanceLink to RASFF SOPs

© FSAI

AAC – not as effective as it might be?

• Ad hoc• Non-harmonised and unstructured• No IT tool• Limited uptake by MS• Slow response time• Not always prioritised (based on MS perception of risk)• Language barrier• Lack of clarity between scope of RASFF and AAC…

© FSAI

AAC – not as effective as it might be?

• Scope of RASFF now limited to serious risk. Other non-compliances need an effective mechanism

• FIC – responsibilities through the food chain?• Highlighted in recent food fraud incidents• MS not generally sharing information with the

Commission so limited to those MS notified – potential incidents / trends could be missed

• No mechanism at Commission level to inform third countries of non-compliances which are not serious

© FSAI

Joined up thinking…

AAC

TRACESRASFF

© FSAI

How is this being addressed?

• Strengthening the AAC provisions in the review of Regulation 882/2004

• Food Fraud Network• Implementing Act on AAC• Development of an IT tool (pre-IMSOC)• Guidance• Meeting of EU expert WG on AAC (January 2015)

• Questionnaire to MS• MS Case studies – Denmark, France, Slovenia, Ireland

and the United Kingdom

© FSAI

AAC Implementing Act

Commission Implementing Decision

• Food fraud and general AAC modules• Technical specifications

• Definitions • AAC to be established and managed by the

Commission• Responsibilities of the liaison bodies • Standard template

• Personal data protection rules – max retention time of five years….

© FSAI

AAC Implementing Act

• Access to information on the results of official controls and other information - limited to liaison bodies and relevant CAs for the purpose of verification

• Closure of an AAC by the requesting MS

• Request for response if none received within 6 months, with 10 days for receiving MS to reply, with the possibility to remain open for a further 6 months

• RASFF and TRACES should be enabled to provide data to

the AAC system

© FSAI

IT Tool

• Scope of the IT system• Creation of a case:

• Creation• Validation• Request for control in another Ms(s)• Response from MS(s)• Confirmation of response• Closure of notification

• Communication: news and information sharing

• To be rolled out for Food Fraud Network AAC first, once Commission Implementing decision adopted

• Testing phase Q1 2015• Video tutorial and manual

© FSAI

15

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

16

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

17

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

18

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

19

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

20

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

21

Example used for demo purposes only

© FSAI

Questionnaire and case studies

• Commission questionnaire completed by 18 MS, 11 of whom used AAC

• MS acknowledged the benefits of such a system• MS identified a number of challenges that need to be

addressed:• Difficulty in understanding when to use RASFF and

when to use ACC• Delays in processing of requests for AAC• Absence of a structured mechanism and IT tool• Lack of clarity as regards the role of the liaison

bodies for AAC• Language barriers• Role of the Commission

• Commission to prepare guidance early 2015 – dynamic document

© FSAI

Role for FLEP?

Should FLEP • contribute to the AAC IT tool format for modules?• input into the proposed guidelines?• input into the review of AAC• assist in strengthening the process as a group and at MS

level?

© FSAI