Final report NORWAY - EFTA Surveillance Authority · identification and registration of bovine...

________________________________________________________________________

Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0)2 286 18 11, fax: (+32)(0)2 286 18 00, www.eftasurv.int

Final report

EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to

NORWAY

19 to 29 May 2008

regarding the application of EEA legislation related to

identification and registration of bovine animals, labelling of beef and beef products,

identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals, and related to

veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain

live animals and products

Comments to the draft report are referred to in the report in underlined italic. The

Comments to the draft report and information on the corrective actions already taken and

planned by the Norwegian competent authority are also included in Annex 5 (except for

the enclosures referred to in the comments).

Brussels, 22 October 2008

Case No: 63916

Event No: 491040

::/ODMA/:PCDOCS/ESA_BXL/474235/1www.eftasurv.int

Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4

2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MISSION ................................................................................ 5

3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION ................................................................................................. 6

4 MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 6

4.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. 7

4.2.1 General information ............................................................................................................. 7 4.2.2 Training of staff ................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.3 Harmonisation of official control ......................................................................................... 8 4.2.4 Enforcement of legislation ................................................................................................... 9

4.3 IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF BOVINE ANIMALS ........................................................... 10 4.4 IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF OVINE AND CAPRINE ANIMALS ....................................... 11 4.5 NATIONAL COMPUTERISED DATABASES ....................................................................................... 12 4.6 LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS .................................................................................... 13 4.7 OFFICIAL CONTROL RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION OF BOVINE, OVINE AND CAPRINE ANIMALS ..... 13 4.8 OFFICIAL CONTROL RELATED TO LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS ................................ 16 4.9 OFFICIAL CONTROL RELATED TO TRADE IN LIVE ANIMALS ........................................................... 17 4.10 PRODUCER OF EARTAGS VISITED .................................................................................................. 18 4.11 FARMS VISITED ............................................................................................................................. 18 4.12 AUCTION MARKETS VISITED ......................................................................................................... 20 4.13 SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND CUTTING PLANTS VISITED ..................................................................... 20 4.14 DAIRY INDUSTRY’S CONSULTANCY SERVICES VISITED ................................................................. 21 4.15 RETAILERS VISITED ...................................................................................................................... 21

5 FINAL MEETING .............................................................................................................................. 22

6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 22

6.1 LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................................ 22 6.1.1 Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999 ...................................................................... 22 6.1.2 Commission Decision 2001/672/EC .................................................................................. 23 6.1.3 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/968 ...................................................................... 23

6.2 APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF BOVINE

ANIMALS AND LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS ............................................................. 23 6.2.1 Eartags................................................................................................................................ 23 6.2.2 Holding registers ................................................................................................................ 23 6.2.3 Holding registers ................................................................................................................ 23 6.2.4 Controls of holdings ........................................................................................................... 23 6.2.5 Controls on holdings .......................................................................................................... 23 6.2.6 Passports ............................................................................................................................ 24 6.2.7 Passports ............................................................................................................................ 24 6.2.8 Labelling of beef products ................................................................................................. 24 6.2.9 Sanctions ............................................................................................................................ 24

6.3 APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF OVINE AND

CAPRINE ANIMALS ........................................................................................................................ 24 6.3.1 Registration of movements of ovine and caprine animals .................................................. 24 6.3.2 Holding registers ................................................................................................................ 24 6.3.3 Holding registers ................................................................................................................ 24 6.3.4 Checks of holdings ............................................................................................................. 24

6.4 APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION RELATED TO VETERINARY CHECKS RELATED TO TRADE IN LIVE

ANIMALS ...................................................................................................................................... 25 6.4.1 Quarantine and isolation .................................................................................................... 25

7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NORWEGIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITY ..................... 25

ANNEX 1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED IN THE REPORT ........................... 26

ANNEX 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION ............................................................................................... 27

1 ACTS RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF

BOVINE ANIMALS AND REGARDING THE LABELLING OF BEEF AND

BEEF PRODUCTS: .................................................................................................... 27

2 ACTS RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF

OVINE AND CAPRINE ANIMALS:........................................................................ 28

3 ACTS RELATED TO VETERINARY AND ZOOTECHNICAL CHECKS

APPLICABLE IN INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN CERTAIN LIVE

ANIMALS AND PRODUCTS: .................................................................................. 29

ANNEX 3 INFORMATION ON PRODUCTION AND TRADE ........................................................ 31

ANNEX 4 OFFICIAL CONTROL RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION OF BOVINE, OVINE

AND CAPRINE ANIMALS .................................................................................................. 33

ANNEX 5 COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT REPORT AND INFORMATION ON THE

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN AND PLANNED BY THE

NORWEGIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITY .................................................................... 35

1 Introduction

The mission took place in Norway from 19 to 30 May 2008. The mission team comprised

two inspectors from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (the Authority).

The opening meeting was held with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food, the Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority

(NFSA) on 19 May. At the meeting, the Norwegian competent authorities added

information to their reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire. This was the third

mission to Norway where identification of cattle and labelling of animal products were

part of the scope of the mission. However, this was the first mission only focusing on

identification and labelling, and the first mission on identification of ovine and caprine

animals and related veterinary checks applicable in intra-Community trade in live animals.

In agreement with the NFSA, and following information received and observations made

during the first days of the mission, some changes were made to the mission programme.

One additional grocery store was visited during the first week. During the second week

two other farms were visited than those proposed in the programme. In addition, an

additional meeting was held with representatives of one district office in order to have a

demonstration of registrations made in the central database and one meeting was also

organised with the dairy industry’s consultancy services. Consequently, a visit to an eartag

producer had to be cancelled.

Throughout the mission, representatives of the head office of the NFSA accompanied the

mission team. In addition, representatives of the relevant regional offices and district

offices of the NFSA participated during meetings at the district offices and the visits to the

different farms and establishments.

A final meeting was held at the NFSA’s head office in Oslo on 29 May 2008, at which,

the mission team presented its main findings and some preliminary conclusions from the

mission.

The abbreviations used in the report are listed in Annex 1. The meetings with the

competent authorities and the visits to farms, auction markets, and slaughterhouses,

cutting plants and other undertakings during the mission are listed in Figure 1. Due to the

information received during the first week of the mission it was agreed with the NFSA to

amend parts of the programme for the second week in order to check some farms with

high amount of incorrect or missing registrations in the central database, and to get more

information and demonstrations of registrations of events in the database.

Figure 1: Competent authority, farms, establishments and other undertakings visited

during the mission

Number Comments

Competent authority 7 In addition to the opening and final meeting, meetings

were held with representatives of three different

regional offices and six different district offices.

Central database 1 Meeting with the company running the different

databases.

Farms 8 Two sheep farms, two beef farms and four dairy or

combined beef/dairy farms.

Slaughterhouses and cutting

plants

- cattle

- sheep and goats

- cutting plants

3

1

1

Including one cutting plant.

Livestock market 2

Dairy industry’s consultancy

services

1

Eartags production company 1

Retailers

- supermarkets

- other groceries

2

1

2 Scope and objective of the mission

The scope of the mission was the following main EEA Acts and related EEA legislation:

a) Regulation (EC) 820/97 on identification and registration of bovine animals

and on labelling of beef and beef products and Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

on identification and registration of bovine animals and on labelling of beef

and beef products1;

b) Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 on identification and registration of

ovine and caprine animals;

c) Council Directive 90/425/EEC on veterinary and zootechnical checks

applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products.

The objective of the mission was to assess the Norwegian competent authorities’

application of the relevant EEA legislation referred to in Chapter 3 and Annex 2 to this

report. A particular focus was put on the systems for eartagging of animals, registrations

and reporting, labelling of beef and beef products, and on the competent authorities

official controls and follow-up of non-conformities.

1 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of 17 July 2000 on identification and registration of bovine animals and on

labelling of beef and beef products and relevant application texts are in the process of being incorporated

into the EEA Agreement. However, in agreement with the NFSA this regulation has been taken into account

during the mission and when drafting the report. Furthermore, and also in agreement with the NFSA, where

relevant under Chapter 7 on Conclusions, references are made to these acts.

3 Legal basis for the mission

The legal basis for the mission was:

a) Point 4 of the Introductory Part of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement;

b) Article 1(e) of Protocol 1 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the

Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (Surveillance

and Court Agreement);

c) Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a

system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and

amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and

64/432/EEC;

d) Commission Decision 98/139/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 the Member States.

Legislation relevant for the mission is listed in Annex 2.

4 Main findings

4.1 National legislation

The main Norwegian Act creating the general framework for the functioning of the NFSA

is Act No 124 of 19 December 2003 relating to food safety and plant and animal health

(the Food Act). The Food Act also provides the legal basis for regulations in the relevant

fields adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Health and Care

Services and the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.

According to the Norwegian regulation on eartagging, registration and reporting of

animals (FOR 2002-09-03 No 970: Forskrift om merking, registrering og rapportering av

dyr) all holdings keeping cattle pigs, lama and farmed deer must be registered in the

central database (Husdyrregisteret). This Norwegian regulation incorporates Regulation

(EC) No 820/97 and Directive 92/102/EEC.

Requirements for labelling of beef are included in the Norwegian regulation No 315 of 28

March 2001 on marking of origin of beef etc. (FOR 2001-03-28 nr 315: Forskrift om

opprinnelsesmerking av ferskt storfekjøtt mv.) which implements Regulation (EC) No

1760/2000.

Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 has been applicable to Norway since March 2005.

All farmers keeping animals permanently shall be registered in the central database. The

legal basis for this obligation can be found in the Norwegian Regulation on eartagging,

registration and reporting of small ruminants (FOR 2005-11-30 No 1356: Forskrift om

merking, registrering og rapportering av småfe) which implements Regulation (EC) No

21/2004.

In the reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire the NFSA informed the

Authority that the following EEA acts have not been implemented into Norwegian law:

a) Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999 of 8 March 1999 concerning an

extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of ear-tags to

bison (Bison bison spp.)2;

b) Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special

rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer

grazing in mountain areas3; and

c) Commission Decision 2006/968/EC of 15 December 2006 implementing

Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and procedures for

the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals4.

4.2 Competent authorities

4.2.1 General information

It follows from a Royal Decree of 19 December 2003 that the competence to instruct the

competent authority, the NFSA, is split between the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the

Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Care Services.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is responsible for primary production on land, the

Ministry of Health Care Services is responsible for processed food and drinking water,

while the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs is responsible for the primary

production in the water. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is

administratively responsible for the NFSA, including budgetary allocations, and for the

co-ordination of the Ministries’ activities towards the NFSA. The head office of the NFSA

reports to the three ministries, depending on the fields.

The NFSA comprises a head office located in Oslo, eight regional offices and 61 district

offices. The head office personnel are distributed on six different geographical locations

in Norway; Oslo is one of them. The head office is responsible for co-ordinating the

organisation's activities including, inter alia, preparation of new legislation, eradication of

animal diseases and the continuous monitoring of the food chain in general, including

animal welfare issues, inspections of farms, establishments and undertakings.

Within the NFSA, administrative decisions are adopted by the district offices. Any appeals

following these decisions are considered by the regional offices. In addition, the regional

offices coordinate the activities of their district offices.

Based on the NFSA’s budget, decided by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the head

office of the NFSA determines the specific budgets for the head office and the regional

offices. This is followed by a budgetary process at the regional offices in co-operation

with their respective district offices. Within the framework agreed with the regional office,

the district offices can allocate their budgets as most suits the districts.

2 See comment from the NFSA on page 35 of the report. 3 See comment from the NFSA on page 36 of the report. 4 See comment from the NFSA on page 35 of the report.

Reports on budget and activities are sent from the district offices to the regional offices

and from the regional offices to the head office. Special reports are made on the budget,

and other reports are sent every four months in addition to an annual report. The head

office is reporting back to the three responsible Ministries.

4.2.2 Training of staff

Related to the scope of this mission, the NFSA organised training courses for its staff both

in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 two two-day courses were organised for a total of 35 staff. The

first course, in March, was for the NFSA staff appointed with special duties with regard to

the databases. Information on, and familiarisation with, the different databases within the

central database, inspections and sanctions were topics addressed in addition to

obligations and procedures for this staff. Late 2006 another course was organised for this

staff and those in the regional offices appointed coordinators within the different regions.

On the agenda were issues such as detailed registrations in the registers for cattle and for

sheep and goats. Furthermore, presentations of new guidelines and procedures for

registration and reporting of data related to cattle and information about new legislation

for identification of sheep and goats, approval of eartags and inspections related to the

new legislation for identification of sheep and goats were also given at this course.

In the spring 2007 a two-day course for all relevant staff of the NFSA was arranged

focusing on how to carry out official inspections and when to use sanctions.

Late summer 2007 a course on traceability was arranged at three different places in

Norway for a total of 93 staff of the NFSA. The main issues on the agenda were reporting

and registration of information in the national cattle database and inspections on farms and

in slaughterhouses.

During the mission, NFSA representatives informed the mission team that training of staff

related to identification of animals had not been scheduled by the head office for 2008.

Furthermore, the head office now considers further training to be the responsibility of the

regional offices. Representatives from all the three regional offices met during the mission

informed the mission team that training in the mentioned topics had not been considered

as necessary in 2008.

4.2.3 Harmonisation of official control

In order to ensure a harmonised official control throughout Norway related to the scope of

this mission, the NFSA has issued a set of guidelines for different types of inspections,

identification of animals and a manual for the use of the database of ovine and caprine

animals.

According to the reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire the NFSA established,

in the beginning of 2008, a national network group consisting of more than 100 staff from

different district and regional offices. In addition to being a forum for discussions,

information is distributed regularly through this network, usually every month.

Furthermore, the regional offices have each appointed regional coordinators who are

responsible for distribution of information to the district offices within their regions.

Finally, the NFSA also publish continuously relevant information on its homepage on the

Internet.

A representative of a regional office met during the mission informed the mission team

that one staff member at the regional office was the contact person for all issues related to

identification of animals. To some extent the regional office had followed-up the periodic

reports from the district offices.

A representative of another regional office met during the mission informed the mission

team that the regional office had not given priority to issues related to identification of

cattle, sheep and goats. Furthermore, the regional office had not appointed any contact

person related to identification of these animals.

In all three regions visited, the mission team noted that the regional offices had not been

involved in how the risk analyses were carried out at the different district offices in order

to ensure a harmonised control within the regions. The regional offices visited had also,

only to a minor extent, followed-up the district offices and how they carried out these

official checks. The follow-up of the district offices carried out had mainly been related to

the use of the central database.

4.2.4 Enforcement of legislation

According to the reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire, the district offices of

the NFSA are responsible for carrying out all inspections related to application of

legislation on identification of live animals and labelling of beef products. Such

inspections are carried out based on risk analyses.

In cases of breaches of legislation related to identification of animals the district offices

can restrict movements of animals, issue a fine or destruct affected animals. Reports on the

activities carried out by the district offices are done by the respective regional offices in

accordance with established routines. As for other decisions adopted by the district offices,

the respective regional offices act as the instance appeal.

The NFSA has issued general guidelines for the enforcement of national legislation. These

guidelines make reference to Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on

verification of official controls5. The options to restrict movements of individual animals

or all animals on a holding, issue a fine or destruct affected animals are not referred to in

these guidelines.

However, Point 4 of the Norwegian guidelines on official control of eartagging,

registration and reporting of cattle contains detailed descriptions on action to be taken in

case of non-compliances. Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that no

other criteria as indicated in Article 2(4)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 have been

defined by Norway. For official control of tagging, registration and reporting of sheep and

goats similar guidelines have been prepared.

Some statistical information related to sanctions is included in Figure 7 of Annex 4 to this

report.

5 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 has been incorporated into the EEA Agreement. However, due to constitutional

requirements the compliance date for this regulation in Norway is still pending.

In one of the regions visited NFSA representatives informed the mission team that

harmonisation of controls had been discussed in a regional meeting. However, a

representative of the regional office informed the mission team that the office had not

initiated any specific measures for ensuring harmonisation of the enforcement of the

legislation on identification of animals.

4.3 Identification and registration of bovine animals

Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 on identification and registration of bovine animals

and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products has been applicable to Norway since

it was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in June 1999. After Norway had provided

detailed information about the procedures in place and following a visit to Norway, the

Authority adopted, in February 2003, Decision 17/03/COL by which the Norwegian

database for bovine animals was recognised as fully operational.

According to the reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire Norway considered

that the central database was complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No

820/97 from the date when the Authority adopted its Decision 17/03/COL.

The cattle database is available to all staff of the NFSA. In addition to the staff at the

district offices of the NFSA, the staff of the company running the databases, the producers

of eartags, the animal keepers, the slaughterhouse organisations and the dairy industry’s

consultancy services have access to the database and can register and update information

depending on the access rights given. Farmers not member of any of the farmers’

associations and not registering information in the central register themselves through the

internet, can send information on specific sheets to their respective district offices of the

NFSA, which then enter the information in the register. In some regions a special district

office has been appointed as responsible for entering the data received from farmers from

the whole region while in other regions the registrations are done by the relevant district

offices.

It follows from the Norwegian regulation FOR 2002-09-03 No 970: Forskrift om merking,

registrering og rapportering av dyr that the animal keepers are responsible for keeping a

register of all animals and movements of animals on the holding. According to this

regulation, the register should be approved by the NFSA. However, in the reply to the pre-

mission questionnaire, the NFSA informed the Authority that the format of the holding

registers has not been approved.

With regard to approval of eartags, the legal competence has been delegated from the head

office to the regional office of Rogaland and Agder. Appeals of decisions adopted by the

regional office related to approval of eartags are handled by the head office of the NFSA.

In Norway it is possible to use eartags with different colours. Detailed requirements are

laid down in the Norwegian regulation FOR 2002-09-03 No 970: Forskrift om merking,

registrering og rapportering av dyr. It follows from this regulation that bovine animals

born in Norway shall be tagged with one yellow eartag in each ear. However, although

rarely followed-up in practice, it is possible to use other colours than yellow on the

original eartags, if necessary for the actual production on the holding,. When changing

holding, an additional white eartag is applied corresponding to the holding where the

animal is kept. Animals imported from other EEA countries keep the original eartags and

should be tagged with an additional salmon-red eartag in one ear within seven days of

arrival at the holding of destination. When imported from third countries the original

eartags are replaced by two salmon red eartags within seven days of import.

According to the reply to the pre-mission questionnaire, it is a legal requirement that

eartags must be replaced if they get lost or become unreadable. It is required that the

animals must get a new eartag of the same colour and the letter E printed along with the

identification number to show that it is a replaced eartag. An eartag bearing the letter R

and the original identification number written with a permanent marking pen can be used

until the correct replacement eartag can be applied.

In the Norwegian reply to the pre-mission questionnaire, the NFSA informed the

Authority that animal passports are not required for movements of native born animals

within Norway. However, all animals traded to Norway from other EEA countries or

imported from third countries must be accompanied by a passport issued by the NFSA.

Passports issued by competent authorities in other EEA countries are returned to the

issuing authority with additional information about the first holding of destination in

Norway when replaced by the Norwegian passport. Animals for export are accompanied

by a passport issued by the NFSA.

According to statistical information provided by the NFSA during the mission, on

average, 61.5 percent of the relevant events were reported to the national database within

seven days of the event occurring. According to representatives of the NFSA and of some

of the slaughterhouses visited, delays in registering events in the database could most

probably be due to delayed reporting from the farmers to the farmers’ organisations or to

the NFSA. In one of the districts visited NFSA representatives informed the mission team

that they considered to have seven days to register the information in the cattle database

after it had been received at the office. The representative of the dairy industry’s

consultancy services visited informed the mission team that the information received from

the farmers was usually registered in their database the same day as it arrived and

automatically transferred to the cattle database the following night.

During the mission, representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that the date

when the event was actually registered in the cattle database was the data used for the

statistical information, which did not take account of when the event was received by the

institution registering the event in the database.

4.4 Identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals

For ovine and caprine animals, the same principles apply as for tagging of bovine animals.

According to information provided by the NFSA, it is more common, in order to facilitate

separation of animals from different holdings on summer grazing, to use different colours

or different combinations of colours on the tags/parts of the tags in order to indicate the

holding of origin and/or the age groups. Tattoos are not approved for identification of

cattle, sheep and goats in Norway. Representatives of the NFSA also informed the mission

team that detailed requirements related to the different colours that can be used are in the

process of being established.

At the opening meeting, representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that

electronic identification of sheep started on a voluntary basis in 2008. During this season

approximately 75% of the lambs born were tagged with an electronic eartag.

4.5 National computerised databases

In Norway the responsibility for operating the official databases have been outsourced to a

private company. This company is running different registers for cattle, for sheep and

goats, for pigs and for poultry. All these registers constitute the central database

(Husdyrregisteret). The central database (Husdyrregisteret) consists of a number of

different databases; the eartag database (Merkeregisteret), the cattle database

(Storferegisteret), the sheep and goat database (Småferegisteret), the pigs database

(Svineregisteret), the poultry database (Fjørferegisteret), the database of owners of

ornamental birds (Hobbyfjørferegisteret) and the database for supervisions

(Tilsynsregisteret). The latter is an internal database for the internal use by the NFSA. The

different animal databases keep information about holdings with animals. In addition, the

cattle database contains all the information required in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

However, the mission team observed that, for instance, pre-designed quick searches for

the staff in the NFSA did not take into account all the factors to be used in carrying out the

risk analysis for deciding on the holdings to be inspected.

At the time of the visit, 20.416 cattle holdings were registered in the cattle database. The

NFSA and the Norwegian Agricultural Authority are in the process of linking the central

database to that for state subsidies. Although not completed it was possible to compare the

holdings in the database with those applying for subsidies. In total, 18.725 cattle holdings

applied for subsidies in 2008, 18.367 of which could be linked to the national cattle

database. For different reasons 358 of those cattle holdings that have applied for subsidies

could not be linked to the cattle database.

According to statistical information provided by representatives of the NFSA, restrictions

on movements of animals were, at the time of the mission, placed on 23 holdings because

of incorrect identification and/or registration.

During the visit to the operator running the databases, the mission team also received

information about the corrective action taken related to the points included in the

Authority’s decision 17/03/COL of 3 February 2003 on the recognition of the Norwegian

cattle database being fully operational. The mission team observed that measures had been

taken concerning all the points included in the Authority’s Decision.

With regard to point 2 of the Decision, related to entering events into the database, the

possibilities to report events into the database had been improved. A web interface had,

inter alia, been established, enabling immediate verification of the registered information

by those who had registered it. This reduced the amount of incorrect registrations. A

national campaign was organised in 2005 focusing only on identification of cattle and

registration into the database for bovine animals.

Training courses have not been arranged, but a representative of the operator running the

databases informed the mission team that they had looked in detail into the incorrect

registrations and worked together with the relevant organisations to improve them.

It is possible to check in the national database whether animals and holdings are under

restrictions on movements. This information is available to the slaughterhouses. However,

it was not clear to what extent this feature was actively used by the slaughterhouses. The

operator of the databases informs the relevant district office by e-mail if animals under

restrictions are moved from the holding, one for each animal moved. At the time of the

mission, 265 e-mails had been sent in 2008 for moving animals out of farms with

restrictions and 17 e-mails had been sent for moving animals with restrictions.

Finally, it was not possible to register movements in the current database for sheep and

goats. However, representatives of the NFSA and of the operator of the databases

indicated to the mission team that it would be possible to have a database for registration

of movements of sheep and goats operational as of autumn 2008.

4.6 Labelling of beef and beef products

The NFSA is responsible for approving labelling systems for beef and beef products. No

voluntary beef labelling system has been approved in Norway and guidelines for approval

of such systems have not been established. However, the Norwegian Quality System for

Agriculture (Kvalitetssystemer i Landbruket (KSL)) is working on a project related to

voluntary labelling of beef and beef products.

4.7 Official control related to identification of bovine, ovine and caprine animals

According to the guidelines on official control of eartagging, registration and reporting of

cattle, the NFSA shall inspect at least 5% of all holdings in each district every year. When

a control is carried out it shall comprise all cattle on the holding.

It follows from these guidelines that the holdings to be inspected are to be selected based

on a risk analysis where the following criteria shall be taken into account:

a) holdings with more than 10% divergence between the number of animals in the

central database and the number of animals covered by the application for

subsidy;

b) the number of cattle on the holding;

c) conditions that can affect animal and human health;

d) substantial changes on the holding compared to previous years;

e) results of previous controls, in particular related to the updating of the holding

register; and

f) the reporting of the information to the cattle database.

The NFSA had not defined in more detail what should be considered as substantial

changes on the holding.

Representatives of one of the district offices met during the mission informed the mission

team that according to calculations made based on a method established by the head office

of the NFSA, the district office had only 60% of the resources necessary to carry out all

the duties assigned to it.

These representatives also informed the mission team that, in addition to the points

included in the guidelines mentioned above, other criteria such as sampling related to

monitoring programmes for animal diseases and residues of veterinary medicinal products

and notifications related to possible breaches of animal welfare requirements, also had a

direct impact on the decision-making process related to the farms to be visited.

Furthermore, the content of the annual budgetary disposition letter from the head office of

the NFSA often influenced the decisions on farms to be visited. Consequently, checks on

identification of live animals, registration and reporting of such events and of movements

of live animals were therefore often not the primary reason for carrying out on-the-spot

checks on farms.

At another district office visited the NFSA representatives informed the mission team that,

due to the amount of resources available, only approximately 60% of the duties assigned

to the district office could be carried out. However, the office had categorised the different

duties into two groups; obligatory and not obligatory. The office had resources to carry out

approximately 95% of the obligatory duties. Checking identification on holdings was not

considered to be an obligatory duty.

At this district office the risk analyses expected to be carried out, in order to decide on the

farms where identification of animals should be checked, were normally not done for

small ruminants. Checks on the identification of animals were done in farms where the

inspectors already had a visit for other purposes such as taking samples for disease

monitoring programmes, residues control programmes and animal welfare visits.

A representative from a third district office visited informed the mission team that when

obligatory duties such as border control and meat control had been covered, the office had

only available 55% of the total resources needed. For the region approximately 70-73% of

the total resources needed were available.

A representative from another district informed the mission team that risk analysis created

the basis for deciding on which farms to be visited. He also informed that the farmers were

invited to sign the reports on-the-spot.

A local inspector at one of the other district offices visited informed the mission team that

approximately 40 to 50% of the cattle farms visited for checking identification of animals

were chosen following a risk analysis carried out in accordance with the guidelines

established by the head office of the NFSA.

In one of the district offices visited NFSA representatives informed the mission team that

the office, in 2007, carried out inspections in 114 out of 1.728 cattle farms and 319 out of

1.492 sheep farms. It was not possible to indicate the number of farms visited based on a

risk analysis taking into account the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000

and Regulation (EC) No 21/2004. However, it was indicated to the mission team that the

majority of the inspections were carried out based on other criteria than those laid down in

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 21/2004.

The local NFSA representative informed the mission team at one of the farms visited that

inspections were normally notified maximum 48 hours before the visit. Usually, the

inspectors tried to notify only 24 hours in advance. The purpose of the visits was only

given to the farmers upon arrival at the farms.

According to information provided by representatives of four district offices visited, two

main options were relevant for reporting to the farmer the results of inspections carried

out. Based on a printout from the national database, the NFSA inspectors added

information on findings made on-the-spot. The report could be signed by the farmer or his

representatives and a copy was sent back to the farmer from the NFSA. This option was

harmonised on a national level, although not consistently applied. The other option was to

send a report to the farmer issued by the inspectors after the inspection. In this situation

the farmer were not given any possibility to comment or to sign the report.

With regard to inspections of slaughterhouses it was not clear, in at least two of the

regions visited, whether these were inspected in the same manner as other holdings. The

regional office had not distributed any information to the district offices related to such

inspections.

In another slaughterhouse visited (only slaughtering sheep) the representatives of the

NFSA could not confirm whether the slaughterhouse was registered in the central

database6. Furthermore, the NFSA representatives informed the mission team that it is not

yet a requirement in Norway to submit information about movements of sheep and goats

to the sheep and goat database. The ante-mortem control in the slaughterhouse consisted

of checks of the means of transport, the animals and the identification of the animals. The

district office of the NFSA responsible for the official control at this slaughterhouse

initiated in 2005 a local campaign to ensure that only animals identified in accordance

with the national requirements were slaughtered. Consequently, in 2005 approximately 30

animals were incinerated because of absence of identification. In 2006 this number had

increased to almost 90 animals while it in 2007 had dropped back again to approximately

20 animals. In these years between 120.000 and 130.000 animals had been slaughtered

annually.

Representatives of one of the regional offices visited informed the mission team that

slaughterhouses sometimes accepted that animals with restrictions on movements were

accepted for slaughter. However, it is possible that the district office can grant derogations

from these restrictions. As these derogations are not linked to the central database the

information in that database is consequently not always reliable for the slaughterhouses7.

In one of the slaughterhouses visited a representative of the NFSA informed the mission

team that animals with only one yellow eartag were accepted at the slaughterhouse. In

these cases, the NFSA notified the slaughterhouse. However, incorrect identification was

not reported back to the relevant district offices for further follow-up of the holdings8. A

possible missing white eartag could not be detected with the type of arrival checks

currently made by the NFSA.

During the mission, the NFSA representatives and the mission team became aware of a

situation where a farmer had ordered a number of replacement eartags to animals on the

holding, including animals registered in the national databases as slaughtered. The

relevant district office was informed of the observations and carried out a check on the

holding. Because of the observations made the district office adopted a decision restricting

movements of the animals on the holding until compliance with the national requirements

could be ensured9.

In 2007 the head office of the NFSA initiated a campaign to improve the registrations in

the central database. A national list of the holdings with most errors in the registrations

was therefore created. Selection criteria were holdings with more than five events

6 See comment from the NFSA on page 37 of the report. 7 See comment from the NFSA on page 37 of the report. 8 See comment from the NFSA on page 37 of the report. 9 See comment from the NFSA on page 38 of the report.

registered more than seven days after they occurred, in a given period (two months),

applications for subsidises without having cattle in the database and the number of animals

in the database diverging in more than five animals from the number of animals in the

applications for subsidises. Letters were sent to approximately 3.900 farmers. The regional

and district offices were expected to follow-up the campaign and some district offices sent

out follow-up letters. However, at the time of the mission it had not been decided whether

to follow-up last year’s letters on a national level. The mission team invited the operator of

the database to print out a similar list for 2008. According to this list approximately 3.700

letters should have been sent out this year.

All district offices have access to the central database and can take into account the

information in the different registers when carrying out on-the-spot checks. However, at

the time of the mission it was not possible to get an overview of the extent for which these

feature was used by the different district offices.

The mission team also asked the NFSA to provide a list of the holdings in two of the

districts to be visited during the latter part of the mission. The criteria should be similar to

those used during the campaign carried out in 2007. Based on this list, the mission team

amended the programme and visited to farms not included in the programme agreed at the

opening meeting. Based on statistical information from the operator of the central database

the mission team visited two other cattle farms not in the initial mission programme (for

details on the observation made in these two farms -see Chapter 4.11 below-). In one of

these farms visited the inspector from the district office of the NFSA wrote a report on-

the-spot that the representative of the farmer signed. The inspector and the farmer’s

representative also agreed on a three weeks deadline for rectification of the non

conformities. In the other farm visited, and following the mission team’s presentation of

the main findings, the inspector from the district office decided to re-visit the farm in order

to make a complete check of all relevant information before deciding on the measures to

be taken.

In one of the farms visited the mission team took note of the NFSA representatives

pointing out to the farmer that he had to take immediate action to improve the state of the

hoofs for some of the animals.

Two auction markets were also visited during the mission. The mission team observed that

the NFSA had not inspected any of these auction markets with the purpose of checking

compliance with legislation on identification of cattle, sheep and goats. However, NFSA

representatives informed the mission team that meetings had been arranged with

representatives of the auction markets where also identification of animals had been on the

agenda. Based on information received during these meetings the NFSA concluded that

inspections of these facilities were not considered as a priority.

4.8 Official control related to labelling of beef and beef products

In the reply to the Authority’s pre-mission questionnaire, the NFSA stated that the

businesses’ own checks systems are systematically examined when the NFSA is carrying

out its inspections. This also includes verification of compliance with the requirements for

labelling. The businesses’ labelling systems as such are not approved, but notice on

decisions can be made if requirements on labelling are not met. Inspections on businesses’

own checks systems are accomplished regularly for beef production establishments.

However, a representative of the NFSA informed the mission team that official checks on

the establishments labelling systems could not be confirmed through guidelines,

procedures or checklists.

In two of the slaughterhouses visited a special system for registration of animals and

traceability of the animals through the slaughtering process were in use. In these

slaughterhouses the identification of the animals were registered in a database before

stunning. At the time of skinning the eartags were removed from the carcasses. At the

point for classification of the carcasses the identification of the individual carcasses were

retrieved from the database again. This system had not been approved by the local

competent authority at the time of approval of the slaughterhouse. However, after appeal

to the central competent authority the method had been approved. The mission team could

not establish that the relevant part of the slaughterhouse’s own-checks system contained

sufficient details for handling of deviations, i.e. if the registration into the database was

incorrect for some animals.

In another slaughterhouse visited NFSA representatives informed the mission team that

the internal traceability system in the slaughterhouse had not been approved as such.

However, the system was assessed during inspections and audits of the establishment and

a point regarding the internal traceability systems was included in the checklist used by the

district office.

In one of the district offices visited NFSA representatives informed the mission team that

following the entry into force of the national regulation on labelling of beef and beef

products, in 2001, the office had initiated a campaign where fact sheets and other

information had been distributed to the undertakings. In 2004, a campaign focusing on

handling meat sold over-the-counter had been the main focus, while a similar campaign in

2005 had focused on chillers. Finally, in 2007 a campaign focusing on retail had been

initiated. This campaign would be continued in 2008 with a particular focus on

multicultural retail shops not being part of the chain-stores. In all these campaigns

labelling and traceability of products had been one of the main issues checked.

4.9 Official control related to trade in live animals

According to Norwegian regulation requirements, goats and sheep can be imported to

Norway from other EEA States (Sweden, Finland and Denmark) without being placed in

Isolation. However, isolation of imported small ruminants from these EEA States is

evaluated on a case to case base, for example inadequate health control documentation

can be a reason especially as far as Maedi-Visna viral disease is concerned.

For cattle it is general requirement that animals imported from other EEA States must be

placed in isolation when arriving at the place of destination in Norway.

In one of the farms visited the mission team observed that animals had been imported

from Sweden in 2007. The mission team noted that that the farmer had applied for

exemption from the Norwegian requirement for isolation of bovine animals imported from

other EEA countries. From the documentation related to this particular import and

provided by the NFSA to the mission team during the mission it was not possible to verify

whether the district office had checked the passports that should have accompanied the

imported animals.

The mission team also visited a farmer having imported animals from Denmark twice the

last three years. The farmer had applied for exemption from the official requirement for

placing imported animals in isolation. Due to the health status of the animals such

exemption had been granted. The NFSA had visited the farmer within a few days after the

animals had arrived, checked the accompanying documents and taken samples, the last

time, for salmonella. A part from these visits no other official control had been carried out

since 2005. The mission team observed that the colour of the salmon red eartags used on

imported animals faded in only a couple of years so it looked similar to the yellow eartags.

Furthermore, NFSA representatives informed the mission team that on one occasion the

passports had not been checked when the cattle had been imported from another EEA

State.

4.10 Producer of eartags visited

According to information provided by the NFSA, currently four producers/distributors of

ear tags provide NFSA’s officially approved ear tags for the identification of bovine, ovine

and caprine animals in Norway. The mission team visited one of these

producers/distributors having the major part of the Norwegian market of animal eartags

and also one of the biggest producers of plastic eartags in the Nordic countries. This

producer was also exporting eartags to several European countries including Great Britain,

the Netherlands and Iceland. The eartags from this producer are both PAS 44 and PAS 66

approved and an ICAR approval was expected later in 2008. This producer could receive

direct orders through phone and telefax, by mail and e-mail and through its homepage.

In Norway the NFSA has organised ordering and distributions of eartags so that the

farmers, the private slaughterhouses, the co-operative slaughterhouses, the dairy co-

operative and the different farmers’ consultancy services can order eartags directly

through the eartag database or through the producers. Orders registered through the eartag

database are transferred to the eartag producers every night.

In case eartags are ordered directly from the producers they must register and have the

orders verified through the eartag database and the central database before effectuation. If

this is not done the NFSA can withdraw the approval of the producers.

4.11 Farms visited

The mission team observed that most of the farmers met during the mission were well

acquainted with the relevant legal requirements related to identification and registration of

animals.

However, in one of the beef farms visited and due to some misunderstandings a number of

calves had been reported to the national database some 300 days after birth. This had

recently been updated and appeared to be correct at the time of the visit. The mission team

also observed that some animals had not been tagged with replacement salmon-red

eartags. Finally, the mission team observed that one animal had only one yellow eartag,

apparently not detected by the farmer.

In another beef farm visited the mission team did not observe any incorrect use of eartags.

However, the farmer had ordered eartags for approximately two year’s need. He registered

all relevant information in an own-prepared register and reported the information by mail

to the district office of the NFSA within seven days.

In a dairy farm visited the farmer himself registered information directly into the cattle

database. He informed the mission team that normally he registered information within the

seven day’s limit, but it could take up to 10-14 days in the more busy periods. It appeared

that all relevant information was registered, although not in a holding register as such, but

in different places. A representative of the NFSA informed the mission team that the

NFSA had accepted that the required information could be filed in different places and

still be in compliance with the requirement for keeping a holding register. In this farm the

mission team also observed that the farmer had eartags exceeding one year’s need.

The mission team observed in another dairy farm visited that the farmer reported events to

the national database directly, and through the dairy farmers’ consultancy services when

the time the event occurred was close to when the monthly reporting scheme was sent. The

farmer informed that he could order eartags exceeding one year’s need. However, he

documented good record keeping of all relevant information.

Based on statistical information from the operator of the central database the mission team

visited two other cattle farms not in the initial mission programme. In one of these farms

the mission team observed that the main reason for the delayed reporting (many of the

registrations the last few months were later than 21days after they had occurred) of events

was a merger of two farms. The mission team met a representative of the farmer who was

very familiar with the legal requirements. He informed the mission team that he was in the

process of making the final up-dates of the registrations. He also informed the mission

team that when he orders eartags there were no restrictions on the number of tags that

could be ordered. The mission team observed two calves brought into the farm with only

one eartag from the holding of origin in addition to the white eartag indicating the current

holding.

In the other farm visited the mission team observed that 5-6% of the animals were missing

one eartag. These observations came in addition to the much delayed reporting (on

average approximately 30 days) of events to the central database. Because of the findings

the district office made a follow-up inspection two days later. Similar non-compliances

related to insufficient tagging were observed by the NFSA during the second inspection.

However, the farmer had updated the majority of the incorrect registrations in the central

database and also ordered the necessary replacement eartags. The district office therefore

decided not to place restrictions on the farm, but follow-up in detail that the replacement

eartags were correctly applied and that the remaining updates of the central database were

done.

In both sheep farms visited the mission team observed that the animals were tagged in

accordance with the requirements. The annual inventories in both farms were updated

automatically based on the information registered in the sheep control organised by the

sheep farmers association. However, although movements of sheep were exceptional, the

owners informed the mission team that procedures such as notifications to the central

database were not established. Representatives of the NFSA confirmed this information.

Finally, holding registers containing information about all movements and replacements of

eartags where not in place in any of the sheep farms visited.

4.12 Auction markets visited

During a mission in 2005 related to the contingency plan for foot and mouth disease the

Authority concluded that the auction markets should have unique registration numbers in

the central database. During this mission the mission team observed that auction markets

had only very recently received such a number and that registration of animals in the

national cattle database had only started few weeks ago.

One of the auction markets visited had auctions twice per year while the other had one

auction every month. In one of the markets approximately 150 animals are passing

through the market per year while in the other approximately 500 animals pass through the

facilities. In one of the auction markets only the cattle that stay at the market overnight

were registered in the central database, while in the other all cattle entering the market

were registered. The mission team observed in one of the markets that it was not easy to

trace the place of destination of the animals, in particular those that had not be sold on the

auction.

One of the auction markets ordered eartags when animals at the market were not marked

correctly, while the other market visited considered this to be the responsibility of the

owner of the animals.

In one of the markets visited the mission team also observed that animals destined for the

auction market could be transported together with animals intended for the nearby

slaughterhouse10.

4.13 Slaughterhouses and cutting plants visited

In the slaughterhouses visited the mission team observed that the staff had good

knowledge about the legal requirements related to identification of live bovine animals

and labelling of beef and beef products. Representatives of one of the slaughterhouse

visited informed the mission team that it was accepted that animals with only one yellow

eartag could be transported to the slaughterhouse for slaughter. However, it was not

possible for the farmers to send for slaughter animals for which the information registered

in the national cattle database were not up-to-date. Furthermore, slaughterhouse

representatives informed the mission team that, where relevant, animals without a white or

salmon read eartag were not accepted for slaughter. The mission team observed that,

although required in the establishment’s own procedures, not all transporters confirmed on

the document accompanying the animals that a check of the identification of the animals

had been carried out.

Representatives of the slaughterhouse also informed the mission team that approximately

one out of 10.000 animals arrived at the slaughterhouse without any eartags. Finally, in the

labelling system established it was possible to trace back meat products to the farms

slaughtered in one particular day.

In one slaughterhouse visited slaughtering sheep and goats, the slaughterhouse

representatives informed the mission team that enrolment for slaughter can be done by

phone, SMS and through the internet. Information registered at the time of enrolment is

the identity of the farmer/owner of the animals, the number of animals to be slaughtered,

10 See comment from the NFSA on page 38 of the report.

the age and sex, the species, the preferred week for slaughter and whether the owner is

transporting the animals to the slaughterhouse. Owners not approved and registered as

transporters can only transport animals if the distance is less than 50 km. The official

veterinarians at the slaughterhouse are checking the suitability of the means of transport

used by the owners. When arriving, the slaughterhouse representatives check at least the

identity of the owner and the number of animals delivered for slaughter. Representatives

of the slaughterhouse were not aware of whether the slaughterhouse was registered in the

central database as a holding. No information about animals received for slaughter was

sent from the slaughterhouse to this database.

Representative of another slaughterhouse visited informed the mission team that it was

accepted that animals can be transported to the slaughterhouse with only one yellow

eartag.

4.14 Dairy industry’s consultancy services visited

The mission team visited one adviser from the dairy industry’s consultancy services. The

person was very familiar with the requirements related to identification of cattle and

reporting of events to the national database. The adviser informed the mission team that

the consultancy services had informed all the farmers about the legal requirements for

reporting all relevant events within seven days. It was not possible at the time of the visit

to give information about the time from the events occurred until the adviser had received

the information. The old established procedure for monthly reporting information to the

consultancy services appeared to still be applied by some farmers. The adviser had also

observed that sending information by mail from the farmers to the consultancy services

often took around three working days. However, many farmers in the area sent the

information by e-mail or on paper with the tank lorry transporting the milk to the dairy

plants.

The adviser received information from approximately 50 farmers that had to be registered

in the national cattle database. According to the files this was normally done the same day

as received from the farmers. All advisers in the dairy industry’s consultancy services

register the information in the consultancy services’ database. The data registered in this

database is transferred to the national cattle database every night.

Finally, the adviser also informed the mission team that all members are visited twice per

year. During these visits the adviser also checks whether there is compliance between the

information in the national cattle database and the number of animals and registrations

made on the farms.

4.15 Retailers visited

In the supermarkets visited the mission team observed that the persons in charge of the

fresh meat departments were very competent and had a good overview of the procedures

and activities related to labelling and traceability of products.

In one of the supermarkets visited the mission team observed that for fresh products

prepared at the market and sold over the counter and also for fresh packed products the

approval numbers of the slaughterhouses and the cutting plants, in addition to the

reference numbers, were indicated. The area where fresh meat was handled was tidy and

well organised. However, the mission team observed both packed and unpacked products

in the refrigerator.

In this supermarket the mission team invited the district office to demonstrate how and

how far back two different batches of minced meat could be traced. Within a few hours

the district office received the relevant information. One of the batches originated from a

day when 107 bovines had been slaughtered originating from 36 different farms. The meat

in the other batch originated from a day’s production in a slaughterhouse having

slaughtered almost 450 bovines that day originating from approximately 150 different

farms.

In another supermarket visited, the supermarket chain’s traceability system was described

and demonstrated. In principle, the producers labelling system of the meat are maintained

by the retailer. However, an internal system was established for the products packed at the

market. Also here the mission team invited the district office to trace back a product. The

district office where the beef was prepared discovered that the country of origin was not

correctly indicated on the labelling. However, it was still possible to trace the product back

to the EEA country of origin and to the slaughterhouse where the animal had been

slaughtered. More detailed checks at the slaughterhouse were not carried out.

Finally, the mission team visited a small grocery not being part of any of the supermarket

chains. In this shop some of the frozen meat observed was only labelled with the day of

freezing and country of origin (Norway). However, from the information available in the

shop it was not possible to trace the product back to the producer or wholesaler. According

to information provided by the district office a number of inspections had been carried out

in this and similar groceries during the last years in particular focusing on labelling and

traceability.

5 Final meeting

A final meeting was held on 29 May at the head of office of the NFSA in Oslo with

representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the NFSA. At this meeting,

the mission team presented its main findings and some preliminary conclusions of the

mission.

At the meeting the mission team also explained that, based on a more detailed assessment

of the information received during the mission, additional conclusions could be included

in the report.

The representatives of the competent authorities did not have any objections to the

observations made and the preliminary conclusions presented.

6 Conclusions

6.1 Legislation

6.1.1 Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999

Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999 of 8 March 1999 concerning an

extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of ear-tags to bison

(Bison bison spp.) has not been implemented into Norwegian law.

6.1.2 Commission Decision 2001/672/EC

Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules

applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in

mountain areas has not been implemented into Norwegian law11.

6.1.3 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/968

Commission Decision 2006/968/EC of 15 December 2006 implementing Council

Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and procedures for the

electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals has not been implemented

into Norwegian law12.

6.2 Application of legislation related to identification and registration of bovine

animals and labelling of beef and beef products

6.2.1 Eartags

Full compliance with Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 could not be

ensured since it was possible to order eartags exceeding the need for one year’s

use.

6.2.2 Holding registers

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 7(4)

thereof could not be fully ensured since the NFSA had not approved the format of

the holding registers.


Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 and in particular Article 8(e)

thereof could not be ensured since the official inspectors are not signing the

registers on the farms when checked.

6.2.4 Controls of holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 2

thereof, and with Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and in particular Articles 1 and

3(1) thereof, could not be fully ensured since slaughterhouses were not considered

as holdings and therefore not controlled13.

6.2.5 Controls on holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and in particular Article 2

thereof, could not be fully ensured since the selection of holdings to be inspected

was often not based on a risk analysis.

11 See comment from the NFSA on page 39 of the report. 12 See comment from the NFSA on page 39 of the report. 13 See comment from the NFSA on page 39 of the report.

6.2.6 Passports

The requirement that all imported animals from other EEA Countries must at all

times after arriving in Norway be accompanied by a passport issued by the NFSA

is not in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article

6(3) thereof.

6.2.7 Passports

For one consignment of live animals imported from another EEA States the

passport were neither checked nor surrendered to the NFSA at the time of arrival

of the animals. Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular

Article 6(3) could therefore not be ensured.

6.2.8 Labelling of beef products


thereof could not be ensured since beef products were not labelled so that a link

was established between the beef and the animal/group of animals concerned.

6.2.9 Sanctions

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 494/98 and in particular Article 4 thereof

could not be ensured since the NFSA had not taken appropriate measures when

farmer had failed to respect the deadline set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC)

No 1760/2000.

6.3 Application of legislation related to identification and registration of ovine and

caprine animals

6.3.1 Registration of movements of ovine and caprine animals


thereof could not be ensured since information about movements of ovine and

caprine animals were not provided to the competent authority.


Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Article 3(1)(b)

thereof could not be ensured since holding registers were not established or used.



thereof could not be ensured since the format of the holding register was not

approved by the competent Authority.

6.3.4 Checks of holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Articles 2 and

12(1) thereof, and with Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 and in particular Article 1

thereof, could not be fully ensured since slaughterhouses were not considered as

holdings and therefore not checked14.


6.4 Application of legislation related to veterinary checks related to trade in live

animals

6.4.1 Quarantine and isolation

The requirement of placing cattle and sheep originating in other EEA States in

isolation at the place of destination is not in compliance with Directive

90/425/EEC and in particular Articles 1, 5 and 6 thereof15.

7 Recommendations to the Norwegian competent authority

Notification of corrective action and a plan for completion of measures

Norway should inform the Authority in its reply to the draft report, by way of written

evidence, of the corrective actions taken and a plan for corrective measures and actions,

including a timetable for completion of measures still outstanding, relevant to all the

conclusions under Chapter 6 of this report. This information will be annexed to the final

report. The Authority should also be kept informed of the completion of the measures

included in the timetable.


Annex 1 List of abbreviations and terms used in the report

Authority EFTA Surveillance Authority

EC European Community

EEA European Economic Area

EEA Agreement Agreement on the European Economic Area

NFSA Norwegian Food Safety Authority

PAS 44 British standard specification of official identification eartags for

cattle

PAS 66 British standard specification of official identification eartags for

sheep and goats

ICAR International Committee for Animal Recording

Annex 2 Relevant legislation

The main EEA Acts relevant for this mission are:

1 Acts related to identification and registration of bovine animals and

regarding the labelling of beef and beef products:

a) The Act referred to at Point 1.1.7a of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing

a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and

regarding the labelling of beef and beef products;

Although still not incorporated into the EEA Agreement the Authority will

take the following acts into account as appropriate and where relevant:

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of

bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and

repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97, as amended;

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 of 23 June 2003 laying down

detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the

European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum level of

controls to be carried out in the framework of the system for the identification

and registration of bovine animals;

Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing

Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council

as regards eartags, passports and holding registers;

b) The Act referred to at Point 4.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health

problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, as

amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations

referred to in Annex I to that Agreement;

c) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.20 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 93/317/EEC of 21 April 1993 concerning

the content of the code to be used on bovine ear marks, as amended and as

adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in

Annex I to that Agreement;

d) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.70 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2628/97 of 29 December 1997

laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC)

No 820/97 as regards transitional provisions for the start-up period of the

system for the identification and registration of bovine animals, as amended;

e) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.71 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA



No 820/97 as regards eartags, holding registers and passports in the

framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine

animals, as amended;

f) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.72 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA



No 820/97 as regards the minimum level of controls to be carried out in the

framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine

animals, as amended;

g) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.76 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/98 of 27 February 1998


No 820/97 as regards the application of minimum administrative sanctions in

the framework of bovine animals;

h) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.86a of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 509/1999 of 8 March 1999

concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application

of ear-tags to bison (Bison bison spp.);

i) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.112 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying

down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to

summer grazing in mountain areas;

j) EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 17/03/COL of 5 February 2003

recognising the fully operational character of the Norwegian database for

bovine animals.

2 Acts related to identification and registration of ovine and caprine

animals:

a) The Act referred to at Point 1.1.7b of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003

establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and

caprine animals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and Directives

92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC, as amended and as adapted to the EEA

Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that

Agreement;


Agreement, Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the

identification and registration of animals, as amended;


Agreement, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 of 11 October 2006

implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the minimum

level of checks to be carried out in relation to the identification and

registration of ovine and caprine animals;


Agreement, Commission Decision 2006/968/EC of 15 December 2006

implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and

procedures for the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals.

3 Acts related to veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-

Community trade in certain live animals and products:

a) The Act referred to at Point 1.1.2 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning

veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in

certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal

market, as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral

adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement;


Agreement, Commission Decision 91/398/EEC of 19 July 1991 on a

computerised network linking veterinary authorities (Animo);


Agreement, Commission Decision 91/585/EEC of 4 November 1991

determining the minimal configuration of certain equipment for the

computerised network linking veterinary authorities (Animo);


Agreement, Commission Decision 91/637/EEC of 3 December 1991 on

establishing the model for the message to be transmitted by means of the

computerised network "Animo", as amended;

e) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 91/638/EEC of 3 December 1991 on the

designation of a common host centre for the computerised network "Animo";

f) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.6 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 92/176/EEC of 2 March 1992 concerning

maps to be provided for use for the Animo network;

g) The Act referred to at Point 1.2.8 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 92/341/EEC of 3 June 1992 relating to the

computer retrieval of local Animo units, as amended and as adapted to the EEA

Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that

Agreement;

h) The Act referred to at Part 1.2.9 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 92/373/EEC of 2 July 1992 designating the

host centre "Animo";

i) The Act referred to at Part 1.2.12 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA

Agreement, Commission Decision 92/486/EEC of 25 September 1992

establishing the form of cooperation between the Animo host centre and

Member States, as amended.

Annex 3 Information on production and trade

Figure 2: Total number of holdings, total number of animals born, total number

of animals slaughtered and meat produced16

2006 2007 2008

Total number of holdings17

a) bovine 24.300 21.226 20.425

b) ovine 16.853 15.800 16.219

c) caprine 1.300 1.228 1.287

Total number of animals born

a) bovine 335.469 325.174 60.318

b) ovine18 1.431.576 1.370.867

c) caprine

Total number of animals slaughtered

a) bovine19 333.892 320.885

b) ovine 1.237.281 1.164.083

c) caprine 23.244 22.180

Meat production (tons, excluding condemns)

a) beef 53.208

b) calves 2.116

c) lamb and mutton 25.153

d) goats (kids and adults) 297

16 Updated statistical information is not easily accessible for the NFSA related to animals slaughtered and

meat produced. A new system in the process of being developed by the NFSA will improve this situation.

17 Total number of holdings is per 31 March 2008.

18 There is no register of total number of ovine and caprine born, the number given in the table is for the total

number of ovine which are less than 1 year old per 01.01.07, and 01.01.08 for preceding years 2006 and

2007 respectively, total numbers for the year 2008 will not be known/published by the Statistisk sentralbyrå

(Statistics Norway) before 01.01.09.

19 Total include calves, dairy and beef cattle. The total numbers for slaughtered animals per 01.01 of each

year are published by the Statistisk sentralbyrå (statistics Norway) for the preceding year. Therefore total

number for animals (bovine and caprine) slaughtered during 2008 will not be known/published before

01.01.09.

Figure 3: Information on trade and movements of live animals

bovine ovine caprine

A) Animals moved from one holding to another

2006 105.492 10.000

2007 108.886 9.600

2008 29.249 900

B) Animals imported from other EEA Countries

2006 28 27 20

2007 2 3 0

2008 0 0 0

C) Animals imported from third countries

2006 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0

C) Animals exported to other EEA Countries

2006 0 5 0

2007 0 218 0

2008 7 0 0

D) Animals exported to third countries

2006 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0

2008 0 50 0

Annex 4 Official control related to identification of bovine, ovine and

caprine animals

Figure 5 Information related to official control carried out of bovine animals

2006 2007 2008

Number of bovine holdings and number of inspections

carried out

Total number of holdings registered 24.300 21.229 20.411

Total number of holdings inspected 1.224 1.156 332

Total number of inspections carried out 1.354 1.233 348

Total number of bovine livestock 972.203 924.270 921.142

Total number of bovines inspected 50.510 51.545 14.901

Total number of non-compliances found related to

a) physical checks 2.001 2.337 642

b) documentary checks 975 1493 453

c) checks on delayed notifications 5.129 4.651 1.161

Total number of sanctions imposed related to

a) restriction of movements of individual bovines 9 32 6

b) restriction of movements of all bovines on the holding 64 83 21

c) destruction of animals 0 0 0

Figure 6 Information related to official control carried out of ovine and caprine

animals

2006 2007 2008

Number of ovine and caprine holdings and number of

inspections carried out

Total number of ovine holdings registered 16.853 15.800 16.219

Total number of caprine holdings registered 1.300 1.228 1.287

Total number of mixed ovine/caprine holdings registered 792 719 744

Total number of holdings registered 19.476 19.120 18.710

Total number of holdings inspected 240 2.231 859

Total number of inspections made 251 2.361 887

Total number of ovine and caprine livestock 1.137.093 1.088.491 1.159.862

Total number of animals in holdings checked 14.731 174.241 70.138

Percentage of holdings inspected 1.27 12.08 4.59

Percentage of animals inspected 1.29 16.00 6.04

Total number of non-compliances found related to

a) identification of ovine animals 1436 2823 1012

b) identification of caprine animals 556 1727 318

c) holding register discrepancy 1363 1554 318

d) failure to notify movement20

e) movement document anomaly 2 31 20

f) animals/holdings with only one finding of non-

compliance as listed in points a) to e)

1.776/66 3.830/359 1.363/116

g) animals/holdings with more than one finding of non-

compliance as listed in points a) to e)

1.581/46 2.305/104 270/20

h) total number of findings of non compliance concerning

animals/holdings (points f) and g)

3.357/112 6.135/463 1.633/136

Figure 7 Total number of sanctions imposed 2006 2007 2008

Ovine/caprine, affected animals 3.704 1.588 369

Ovine/caprine, affected holdings 28 16 4

Bovine, affected animals 2.574 3.702 845

Bovine, affected holdings 100 91 22

20 Movements are not registered in the central database. The NFSA has recently started to develop a system

for such registrations.

Annex 5 Comments to the draft report and information on the corrective

actions already taken and planned by the Norwegian competent

authority

Dear Sir/Madam

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY - MISSION TO NORWAY FROM 19 TO 29 MAY 2008 REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF EEA LEGISLATION RELATED TO IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF ANIMALS and LABELLING OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS - DRAFT REPORT We have received the draft report from the mission to Norway 19 to 29 May 2008 regarding the application of EEA legislation related to the identification and registration of bovine animals, labelling of beef and beef products, identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals, and related to veterinary and zoo technical checks applicable in intra-community trade in certain live animals products. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) is hereby responding to ESA’s recommendations and encloses its comment on the factual content and notification of corrective actions, supported by documentation when possible and as requested.

Comments on the factual content :

4.1 National legislation

NFSA informed in the reply to ESA`s pre-mission questionnaire, that the following EEA acts have not been implemented into Norwegian law: a) Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999 of 8 March 1999 concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of ear-tags to bison (Bison bison spp.);

We suggest to change this paragraph as a new Norwegian regulation implementing Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999, together with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, is currently under preparation and expected to enter into force before 15 January 2009.

b) Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas; and ???

Commission Decision 2001/672/EC has not been implemented in Norwegian regulation because the decision applies to the movements of bovine animal within the following Member States or part of these states: France, Italia, Austria and Portugal. The Decision has been incorporated in Annex I Chapter 1 section 1.2 (“application texts”) by mistake. Like other acts addressed to specific Member States, it should rather have been incorporated under “Acts which the EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall take due account”. c) Commission Decision 2006/968/EC of 15 December 2006 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and procedures for the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals.

Commission Decision 2006/968/EC is fully implemented in Norwegian Regulation FOR 2008-04-23 nr 395: Forskrift om krav til identifikator, avleser og

prøvingslaboratorium i forbindelse med elektronisk identifikasjon av småfe, which entered into force on the 23rd April 2008. A copy of the regulation is enclosed. 4.2.1 General information

The NFSA comprises a head office located in Oslo, eight regional offices and 61 district offices. We suggest the following amendment:

The NFSA comprises a head office, eight regional offices and 61 district offices.. The head office personnel are distributed on six different geographical locations in Norway; Oslo is one of them.

4.3 Identification and registration of bovine animals

According to statistical information provided by the NFSA during the mission, on average, 54 percent of the relevant events were reported to the national database within seven days of the event occurring. We suggest the following amendments: According to statistical information provided by the NFSA during the mission, on average, 61.5 percent of the relevant events were reported to the national database within seven days of the event occurring. Enclosed statistic’s table for the 12 months period of (June 2007 – May 2008), which shows that an average of 61.5 percent of relevant events were reported to the national database within seven days of the event occurring.

4.7 Official control related to identification of bovine, ovine and caprine animals

With regard to inspections of slaughterhouses it was not clear, in at least two of the regions visited, whether these were inspected in the same manner as other holdings. The regional office had not distributed any information to the district offices related to such inspections. In another slaughterhouse visited (only slaughtering sheep) the representatives of the NFSA could not confirm whether the slaughterhouse was registered in the central database. NFSA confirm that identification is part of the ante mortem control at the slaughterhouse. The slaughterhouses are registered in the central database. They report slaughtering of cattle on individual base to the central database. Representatives of one of the regional offices visited informed the mission team that slaughterhouses sometimes accepted that animals with restrictions on movements were accepted for slaughter. However, it is possible that the district office can grant derogations from these restrictions. As these derogations are not linked to the central database the information in that database is consequently not always reliable for the slaughterhouses. We would like to clarify that when the district office grants derogations from restrictions, a copy of the decision is sent to the slaughterhouse. In one of the slaughterhouses visited a representative of the NFSA informed the mission team that animals with only one yellow ear tag were accepted at the slaughterhouse. In these cases, the NFSA notified the slaughterhouse. However, incorrect identification was not reported back to the relevant district offices for further follow-up of the holdings. NFSA is aware that such cases can occur, however, the official veterinarians at the slaughterhouses are instructed to inform the relevant local district office, and the district office has to consider a follow-up of the relevant holdings. The following enclosed documents are NFSA’s guidelines for proper identification procedures at the slaughterhouse. During the mission, the NFSA representatives and the mission team became aware of a situation where a farmer had ordered a number of replacement ear tags to animals on the holding, including animals registered in the national databases as slaughtered. The relevant district office was informed of the observations and carried out a check on the holding. Because of the observations made the district office adopted a decision restricting movements of the animals on the holding until compliance with the national requirements could be ensured.

NFSA’s district office followed up this case closely. The decision to movement restrictions was repealed, when animal identification was insured, and all animals on the holding were correctly ear tagged and registered in the central database. 4.9 Official control related to trade in live animals

Representatives of the NFSA informed the mission team that according to Norwegian requirements goats can be imported to Norway from other EEA States without being placed in isolation. For sheep and cattle it is a general requirement that animals imported from other EEA States must be placed in isolation when arriving at the place of destination in Norway. The NFSA can grant derogation from the isolation requirement, depending on the status of the holding and region of origin compared with the status of the farm of destination. In general isolation is used at the place of destination for animals originating in other EEA countries while quarantine is used for animals imported from third countries. Norwegian regulation requirements do not differentiate between sheep and goat and as the paragraph implies and therefore we suggest the following amendment: According to Norwegian regulation requirements, goats and sheep can be imported to Norway from other EEA States (Sweden, Finland and Denmark) without being placed in Isolation. However, isolation of imported small ruminants from these EEA States is evaluated on a case to case base, for example inadequate health control documentation can be a reason especially as far as Maedi-Visna viral disease is concerned. For cattle it is general requirement that animals imported from other EEA States must be placed in isolation when arriving at the place of destination in Norway.

4.10 Producer of ear tags visited

According to information provided by the NFSA, four producers/distributors of ear tags have been approved for providing ear tags for identification of bovine, ovine and caprine animals in Norway. We suggest the following amendment as NFSA approves ear tags and not producers/ distributors: According to information provided by the NFSA, currently four producers/distributors of ear tags provide NFSA’s officially approved ear tags for the identification of bovine, ovine and caprine animals in Norway.

4.12 Auction markets visited

In one of the markets visited the mission team also observed that animals destined for the auction market could be transported together with animals intended for the nearby slaughterhouse. We suggest amendment of this paragraph as animals transported to auction markets are never accompanied with animals intended for the slaughterhouse. However after the auction has taken place, it may happen that animals not sold at the auction are transported together with sold animals when those are to be

transported from the auction to the new owner. In such cases the slaughterhouse will always be the last stop.

6.1.2 Commission Decision 2001/672/EC

Commission Decision 2001/672/EC of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas has not been implemented into Norwegian law.

Commission Decision 2001/672/EC applies to the movements of bovine animal within the following Member States or part of these states: France, Italia, Austria and Portugal. The Decision has been incorporated in Annex I Chapter 1 section 1.2 (“application texts”) by mistake. Like other acts addressed to specific Member States, the Decision should rather have been incorporated under “Acts which the EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall take due account”. 6.1.3 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/968

Commission Decision 2006/968/EC of 15 December 2006 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards guidelines and procedures for the electronic identification of ovine and caprine animals has not been implemented into Norwegian law.

NFSA suggests elimination of this paragraph Commission Regulation (EC) No 2006/968 is fully implemented in Norwegian Regulation FOR 2008-04-23 nr 395: Forskrift om krav til identifikator, avleser og prøvingslaboratorium i forbindelse med elektronisk identifikasjon av småfe, which entered into force on the 23rd April 2008. Please find enclosed a copy of the regulation. 6.2.4 Controls of holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 2 thereof, and with Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and in particular Articles 1 and 3(1) thereof, could not be fully ensured since slaughterhouses were not considered as holdings and therefore not controlled.

Identification of animals is part of the ante mortem control. Slaughterhouses report’s slaughtering of cattle on individual base to the central register.

6.3.4 Checks of holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Articles 2 and 12(1) thereof, and with Regulation (EC) No 1505/2006 and in particular Article 1 thereof, could not be fully ensured since slaughterhouses were not considered as holdings and therefore not checked.

NFSA confirms that identification of animals is part of the ante mortem control.

6.4.1 Quarantine and isolation

The requirement of placing cattle and sheep originating in other EEA States in isolation at the place of destination is not in compliance with Directive 90/425/EEC and in particular Articles 1, 5 and 6 thereof.

Norway previously, and in a series of package meetings, during the period 2002 - 2007 has answered this point when raised by ESA. We would like to refer to our latest letter dated 29 January 2007 where the following position was elaborated: Norway does not consider the isolation requirements as it has been described previously and is described once again during this mission to be in conflict with the EEA requirements in Council Directive 90/425/EEC. The isolation requirement is a provision pertaining to surveillance and control of diseases in Norway and is applied to trade in animals whose health status is not sufficiently documented. The decision is therefore taken on a case by case basis and applies to any movement of animals. This is considered to be part of our national surveillance and control system and is not related to import.

Notification of NFSA’s corrective actions:

4.9 Official control related to trade in live animals

In one of the farms visited the mission team observed that animals had been imported from Sweden in 2007. The mission team noted that that the farmer had applied for exemption from the Norwegian requirement for isolation of bovine animals imported from other EEA countries. From the documentation related to this particular import and provided by the NFSA to the mission team during the mission it was not possible to verify whether the district office had checked the passports that should have accompanied the imported animals. Renewed information is posted on NFSA’s intranet website to emphasis regulations and use of bovine passport (July 2008)

6.1.1 Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999

Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999 of 8 March 1999 concerning an extension of the maximum period laid down for the application of ear-tags to bison (Bison bison spp.) has not been implemented into Norwegian law.

A new Norwegian regulation implementing Commission Regulation EC (No) 509/1999, together with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, is currently under preparation and expected to enter into force before 15 January 2009. 6.2.1 Ear tags

Full compliance with Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 could not be ensured since it was possible to order ear tags exceeding the need for one year’s use.

NFSA have now (July 2008) blocked all possibilities to order ear tags exceeding the need for one year’s use throughout the eaters ordering system.


Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 7(4) thereof could not be fully ensured since the NFSA had not approved the format of the holding registers.

To avoid burdening producers with time consuming registration of information, NFSA is currently reviewing the holding registration formats of the various organisations which bovine producers have membership in. This is done in efforts to approve a written and an electronic format for a holding register which would ensures both, compliance with 1760/2000 requirements, and information required by the producers organisations. NFSA plan to achieve an approved format by the end of 2008.


Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 911/2004 and in particular Article 8(e) thereof could not be ensured since the official inspectors are not signing the registers on the farms when checked.

In addition to comments attached to point 6.2.2 above, insuring official inspectors signature on registers when farms are checked, would be achieved by incorporating a field for signature in the approved format for holdings register. Also by sending instructions to NFSA’s district offices, to emphasis the importance of signing the registers on the farms when checked. 6.2.5 Controls on holdings

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1082/2003 and in particular Article 2 thereof, could not be fully ensured since the selection of holdings to be inspected was often not based on a risk analysis.

During a meeting with the Chief Regional Officers in June 2008, it was pointed that inspections regarding identification of animals should be given priority and that these inspections should be based on a risk analysis. Chief Regional Officers were instructed to send Instructions to their district offices on the utilization of these reports for risk analysis and planning of inspections, enclosed a copy of the case formulation which was forwarded to the meeting and the meetings report.

6.2.6 Passports

The requirement that all imported animals from other EEA Countries must at all times after arriving in Norway be accompanied by a passport issued by the NFSA is not in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 6(3) thereof.

6.2.7 Passports

For one consignment of live animals imported from another EEA States the passport were neither checked nor surrendered to the NFSA at the time of

arrival of the animals. Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 6(3) could therefore not be ensured.

: Renewed information posted on NFSA’s intra-net website to emphasis regulations regarding use of bovine passport. Attached is a copy of the information posted on the intranet July 2008. 6.2.8 Labelling of beef products

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and in particular Article 13(1) thereof could not be ensured since beef products were not labelled so that a link was established between the beef and the animal/group of animals concerned.

NFSA’s District Offices are the competent authority responsible for controlling that beef products are labelled so that a link could be established between the beef and the animal/group of animals concerned, they have the authority to take appropriate measures in cases of non compliance. NFSA acknowledge this short coming observed during ESA’s inspection and has planed it as an item on agenda for next Head Office meeting with the Chief Regional Officers scheduled during September 2008. This is planed in action to prompt district offices to take more effective measures for ensure compliance with legislations.

6.2.9 Sanctions

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 494/98 and in particular Article 4 thereof could not be ensured since the NFSA had not taken appropriate measures when farmer had failed to respect the deadline set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000.

In the meeting with the Chief Regional Officers in June 2008, it was pointed that inspections regarding identification of animals should be given priority and that these inspections should be based on a risk analysis. It was further pointed that sanctions should be used in case of non-compliance. Enclosed a copy of the case

report, which was forwarded to the meeting, and the meeting’s report.

NFSA has also considered the obligation to fine farmers who don’t respect the deadline of 7 days to report actions to the central database. This action will require a new regulation, which NFSA is going to start with by autumn 2008.

NFSA’s further actions: During May 2008 negotiations between The Ministry of Agriculture and The Farmers Associations reached an agreement on the use of information in the central register (cattle register) as information database for calculating state subsidies (page 21 attached document). A schedule for how and when to effectuate this was part of the negotiations. When fully operated, the number of days each cattle has been on the holding will be used as the basis for calculating the subsidies. This information will be extracted from information registered in the central register (cattle register). A pilot project is planed during August 2009 and expected to be fully operable in August 2011. Please find enclosed a copy of

meeting’s report and the plan for using the central register as an information database. 6.3.1 Registration of movements of ovine and caprine animals

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Article 8(2) thereof could not be ensured since information about movements of ovine and caprine animals were not provided to the competent authority.

Information about movements of ovine and caprine would be insured after the integration of the central register into MATS21.This is expected to be achieved within 6 months. Please find enclosed recent information on MATS posted on NFSA’s intranet. 6.3.2 Holding registers

Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Article 3(1)(b) thereof could not be ensured since holding registers were not established or used.


Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 and in particular Article 5(3) thereof could not be ensured since the format of the holding register was not approved by the competent Authority. Article 3(1)(b) requires an “ up-to-date registers kept on each holding”. Article 5(3) requirement “the register shall be in a format approved by NFSA”.

To avoid burdening producers with time consuming registration of information, NFSA is currently reviewing the holding registration formats of the various organisations which ovine and caprine producers have membership in. This is done in efforts to approve written and electronic holding register formats which would ensures both, compliance with 21/2004 requirements, and information required by the producers organisations. NFSA aims to advice and control the keeping of an up-to date registers on each holding after it have an approved format for a holding register by the end of 2008. Yours Sincerely Kristina Landsverk Deputy Director General

• 21 MATS is a workflow system that supports the control activities of NFSA . When fully

implemented it will support all control activities carried out in the field by NFSA inspectors across

all areas of control, MATS will also provide extensive reporting capabilities.

Final report NORWAY - EFTA Surveillance Authority · identification and registration of bovine...

Documents

Transcript of Final report NORWAY - EFTA Surveillance Authority · identification and registration of bovine...