1. © FSAI Administrative Assistance and Cooperation – a role for FLEP? FLEP Meeting BfR, Berlin 18 th -19 th February 2015 Dorothy Guina Dornan

2. © FSAI Overview Legal framework Shortcomings How to address these Role for FLEP?

3. © 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

4. © 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

5. © 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

6. © 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

7. © FSAI Exchange of Information RASFF TRACES Administrative Assistance and Cooperation Regulation 178/2002 Regulation 16/2011 SOPs Regulation 97/78 Article 24: Reinforced measures Guidance Link to RASFF SOPs

8. © 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…

9. © 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

10. © FSAI Joined up thinking… AAC TRACESRASFF

11. © 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

12. © 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….

13. © 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

14. © 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

15. © FSAI 15 Example used for demo purposes only

16. © FSAI 16 Example used for demo purposes only

17. © FSAI 17 Example used for demo purposes only

18. © FSAI 18 Example used for demo purposes only

19. © FSAI 19 Example used for demo purposes only

20. © FSAI 20 Example used for demo purposes only

21. © FSAI 21 Example used for demo purposes only

22. © 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

23. © 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?

24. © FSAI