EU TWINNING PROJECT
Mission Report
SR12-IB-AG-02
General Information
Project / Capacity building for Upgrading of Food establishments and Animal By-Product managementComponent / 2. UPGRADING OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS
Activity / Activity 2.2 Development of Check-lists and procedures for the assessment of food establishments
Activity 2.4 Organisation and execution of inspection assessment of structural conditions and classification of food establishments.
Reference number TOR / Mission no. 33
Short Term Expert / Mr. Janis Altenburgs, LV
Ms. Inga Skadule, LV
Mr. Edzart Bruiner, NL
Ms. Shemshad Jensen, DK
Period STE Mission / 5 - 9 October 2015 (4 working days)
Arrival / 05.10.2015
Working days / 06-09.10.2015
Departure / 09.10.2015 after work or 10.10.15
Persons Interviewed/Workgroup Members / Participants lists
Used documentation/information / Draft of procedures
Draft of Checklists
Agenda
Other delivered products concerning TOR
(Please attach a copy of the terms of reference
provided by the resident Twinning Adviser,
Programme, day, date, Introduction
documentation, Power Point Presentation, etc.)
This Mission Report includes appendix(es) / General Report (part of this document)
Information Analyse (phase 1)
Advise and recommendations (phase 2)
Description of implemented products (phase 2)
Training report (phase 3)
Study visit/ Internship report (phase 3)
Other:
1Description of the activities during visit
Overview of the subject of activity concerning the STE team missionagenda was tailored and implemented in accordance with Terms of References for the activities 33 “Development of check lists and procedures for the assessment of food establishments and organization and execution of inspection assessment of structural conditions and classification of food establishments.”
Day 1 (Tuesday, 6th October)
Ms. Anette Haurum, the RTAopened first session meeting with welcoming words and pointed out the purpose of the mission as laid out in the ToR which was to evaluate and give recommendations for amendments to the already drafted checklists for slaughterhouses and meat establishments together with the drafted procedures for the inspection assessment of the establishments.
A plan was also made during the course of the day to visit one establishment the next day.An establishment was chosen for the group for the following day´s visit.
There was a discussion amongst the inspectors group about the registered and approved establishments and all that should fall under this upgrading would be approved as per EU regulations and guidelines.
The drafted procedure that was presented to the STEs by the BC wasdiscussed and amended during the session. The revised drafted procedure is enclosed as an annex to this mission report
There were discussions on several issues related to the enforcement actions and importance of proper assessment and classification and categorization of low capacity establishments, the decisions made by SIT in the end and the possibilities for the FBOs to complain.
Day 2 (Wednesday, 6th October)
The establishment, which was chosen for the visit for simulating exercise, was a local slaughterhouse and cutting plant (under one roof) where they slaughtered cattle, pigs and occasionally sheep/goats.There was no production during the visit.
The several following observations were made:
The structural deficiencies were mainly due to the result of lack of maintenance.
It also seemed that the national enforcement legislation was not implemented in full extent.
There was not equipped Post-Mortem-examination of offal (guts and stomachs) together with carcasses. It was described that the meat inspector was not present at the time of slaughter.
As pneumatic equipment was used for stunning of cattle, the stunning box was not equipped with head (vertical and horizontal) restraining device.
Drainage system was not equipped with sieves with holes not more than 6mm as it is set by the ABP regulation for cattle and sheep slaughterhouses.
After the visit, the group returned to the Veterinary Directorate and continued to workwith the updating of the checklists as per the non-compliances identified as part and result of the simulating exercise.
The veterinary inspectors showed deep enthusiasm and fairness in their decisions after going through the results of lengthy discussions during the updating sessions.
The following checklists were chosen for the updating to start with. Updates made in the checklists are putted directly in the relevant check-list and incorporated as enclosure to this mission report.
- CHECK LIST A-COMPLIANCE REPORT GENERAL HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS – Regulation (EU) 852/2004
- CHECK LIST B – COMPLIANCE REPORT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD OF ANIMAL ORIGIN REGULATION (EC) 853/2004 REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAUGHTERHOUSES – MEAT OF DOMESTIC UNGULATES ANNEX III, SECTION 1 (Domestic cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, domestic ungulates; farmed game – Cervidae, Suidae)
- CHECK LIST C – COMPLIANCE REPORT SPECIFIC HYGIENE RULES FOR FOOD OF ANIMAL ORIGIN REGULATION 853/2004 REQUIREMENTS FOR CUTTING PLANTS – DOMESTIC UNGULATES - ANNEX III, SECTION 1 (domestic cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, domestic ungulates; farmed game: Cervidae, Suidae)
- CHECK LIST F-COMPLIANCE REPORT Specific requirement for food of animal origin regulation (EC) 853/2004 Animal welfare requirement, lairage and stunning 853/2004 and 1099/2009
Results of the simulating exercise
The exercise in the establishment showed that the ABP requirements in the check-list which could be structural (sieve size, handling with the ABP, container conditions) were not defined in the drafted check-list. Based on discussion among the STE and inspectors, the establishment could be categorized as in category2.
Day 3 (Thursday, 8th October)
The training started with a photo session from the visit the previous days followed by discussions on the hygiene package since there were many questions asked by the veterinary inspectors.
Continuation of the updating process of the checklists.It was discussed where the non-compliances in the check-list have to be fixed; only in general part, specific part or both and whether the requirements for maintenance should be in the check-list.It was agreed that if requirements are repeated in several questions, then the same evaluation (compliant, non-compliant, not-applicable) is put in all questions and regarding the commentbox only explanatory comments are put one of the places in the rest a reference in put in “see comment for question No.xx”.
Day 4 (Friday, 9th October)
Final touches to the draft of procedures were given by the RTA and the STEs.
These were later discussed with the potential CWG members and the amendments were accepted.
In the afternoon the STEs continued working with the updating of the remaining relevant checklists.
The training program for upgrading process for 50 inspectors were discussed and amended.
The BC informed that individual inspectors can be taken to court by the FBO’s if they do not agree with decisions made by the Inspector or in case the FBO thinks the Inspector missuses his/ her power. This is a potential risk of findings not being properly reported by the Inspector. It is important to ensure the ability of inspectors being able to work independent, and to know that they will be supported by the CA.
2Comment on progress in candidate country
Insofar the tasks that were expected from the BC as a result of the previous missions on elaboration of check-list for meat establishments and procedure for assessment and categorization of establishments were met with.
Cooperation and eagerness to a way forward for the improvement of structure and hygienic way of working in meat establishments was clearly noticed in the group.
The appointment of the special inspection teams and the SIT is not yet finalised.
3Recommendations for future actions or STE missions
Evaluation of the drafted checklists for slaughterhouses and meat establishments and drafted procedures for the inspection and assessment of the establishments resulted into the following recommendations:
The comments and recommendation on procedure for upgrading the establishments are given in the procedure.
The following comments and recommendation on check-lists are given below :
It is recommended to put the ABP questions/ provisions in the check-lists.
It is recommended as soon as possible to solve the problem concerning personal liability of inspectors and sanctions related to their performance while on duty, so that any potential lawsuits will have to be against the Competent Authority (CA) and not the individual inspector.