9 EU veterinary checks for meat imports
| (32614)
7968/11
—
| Special Report No 14/2010 by the European Court of Auditors: The Commission's management of the system of veterinary checks for meat imports following the 2004 hygiene legislation reforms
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 23 March 2011
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 4 April
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 Because imported meat products can transmit disease to
both humans and livestock, the EU regulations on food safety —
which were introduced in 2004 following the various health crises
in the 1990s — include a number of provisions addressing
this issue. In particular, veterinary checks on imports into the
EU and in the corresponding exporting countries are carried out
by national authorities, with the cost being borne mostly by operators
(and ultimately the consumer), whilst EU expenditure consists
essentially of administration by the relevant Commission Directorate
(in particular, its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)), plus the
training national inspectors. In addition, the EU budget has financed
the setting-up and running of two information systems —
the Trade Control and Export System (TRACES), responsible for
monitoring imports of products of animal origin, and the Rapid
Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF).
9.2 The basic principle underlying the EU system of veterinary
checks is that imported meat products must satisfy sanitary requirements
at least equivalent to those applying to EU internal production.
Thus, imported products must come from an establishment which
has been approved by the Commission, which is located in an authorised
third country, and which has been certified by the exporting country's
veterinary authorities as meeting EU requirements. In addition,
"equivalence agreements" with third countries enable
the EU to accept those countries' control systems as being equivalent
to its own. Every consignment of goods then has to be presented
to a Commission-approved border inspection post, where it is inspected
by the veterinary authorities of the Member State concerned; and,
once accepted, the consignment may move freely between Member
States. Verification that Member States apply these provisions
correctly is the responsibility of the FVO.
The current document
9.3 Since the cost to the EU budget of health crises —
which can in principle result from poor implementation of veterinary
checks — can be particularly high, the European Court of
Auditors has sought in this Special Report to examine whether:
- the revision of the EU regulations has been completed;
- the Commission ensures that the relevant information systems
are performing effectively;
- the FVO makes sure that national systems for managing veterinary
checks are working properly;
- the Commission carries out its coordination role between Member
States, and makes general evaluations of the sanitary check system
for meat imports.
9.4 The Court carried out the audit in 2009 by examining the
FVO's activities, visiting the responsible authorities and border
inspection posts in four Member States, and participating in a
number of FVO audits, including one in the UK. It also collected
information on how the Commission takes into account the interests
of the various stakeholders.
9.5 The Court observes that meat consumption and imports have
been increasing, and currently account for 3.6% of EU consumption.
However, it adds that there is in practice no evidence that any
of the major health crises suffered by the EU in the past 15 years
has been due to shortcomings in the performance of veterinary
checks, in that the incidence of diseases has either been internal
to the EU or connected with illegal movements or failure to apply
the appropriate measures.
9.6 As regards the specific questions addressed in the audit,
the Court concludes that the implementation of the hygiene package
has been delayed, and has still to be completed in certain important
regulatory aspects, adding that substantial reductions in the
levels of import controls have been accepted in some equivalence
agreements with third countries which were not supported by reasonable
justifying evidence. On the other hand, it says that the information
systems (TRACES and RASFF) on which veterinary checks on meat
imports rely are widely and usefully employed across the EU (although
certain border inspection posts in three Member States still do
not enter all the relevant data, thus affecting the completeness
and reliability of the information systems as a whole).
9.7 The Court also notes that the Commission continuously
supervises the veterinary checks on meat imports through its FVO,
but that it is to take further initiatives in order to detect
shortcomings. These include:
- completing the regulatory framework of the hygiene package,
and consolidating it in a codified and user-friendly manner;
- further developing TRACES and RASFF;
- providing further guidelines and the performance indicators
necessary for implementing an EU strategy for veterinary checks
and for determining whether the objectives of the hygiene package
have been achieved;
- further improving the risk assessment models used by the FVO
for its planning of audit work;
- ensuring that Member States overcome any weaknesses detected
in meat import veterinary checks in the shortest reasonable period
of time.
The Government's view
9.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 4 April 2011, the Minister
of State for Agriculture and Food at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Jim Paice) simply notes that the report
contains no legislative proposals and has no direct policy implications
for the UK. However, he adds that the Commission is reviewing
EU rules for imports of meat, and that the report will help to
inform the UK's response to any subsequent regulatory proposals.
Conclusion
9.9 As is customary in Reports of this kind, the Court
of Auditors has identified a large number of detailed technical
points. It has also reached some pertinent conclusions about the
extent to which the package of legislative measures adopted in
2004 has been implemented, including those aspects where more
still needs to be done. Because the Report deals with an important
area in terms of both human and animal health, we think it right
to draw it to the attention of the House, but we do not believe
it raises any issues requiring further consideration. We are therefore
clearing it.
|
