Base Legal. Decreto · Ley · Reglamento Base legal del Sistema de Transparencia. Ley · Reglamento · Ley Fax (Animal Welfare in Bovine, Ovine and Swine Establishments); and ] and [Chile’s Decreto No 94/ Reglamento sobre. 76 [] – Decree “Rules of Procedure on Labor Relations,” the.

Author: Mikar Gozragore
Country: Martinique
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 12 September 2010
Pages: 79
PDF File Size: 3.88 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.35 Mb
ISBN: 190-7-70948-909-5
Downloads: 29756
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozshugami

The legislative framework is improved and streamlined, plant health and PRM, and ABP are included in its scope, mandatory fees are extended to cover key areas of the agri-food chain with the possibility for MS to refund fees paid by micro-enterprises. Evidence suggests that the increase in costs for those individual operators in sectors which would be covered by derceto extended scope of mandatory fees is likely to be of little significance for the overall production costs.

In their opinion, this obligation would represent an unnecessary and excessive burden. In doing that they verify that operators’ activities and goods placed on the EU market either EU produced or imported from third countries are in compliance with the relevant EU agri-food chain standards and requirements. The review of the EU legislative framework applicable to official controls along the agri-food chain aims at improving the efficiency and consistency of the system, and ensuring its long term sustainability.

Transparency and reporting to the public on fees for official controls by EU Member State. Under the current regime, where a MS is charging a standard fee which is higher than decretl actual cost whereas other MS do not, or where a MS recovers a higher percentage of fees than other MS, the operators in the territory of that MS will be at a competitive disadvantage in relation to operators in the other MS.

The present exercise has looked at a broad range of options, including that of harmonising fee levels across MS, and that of de-regulating the matter. Finally they emphasise that not all Member States adhere to the established timeframe of 15 days for control and that given improvements in analytical methods and costs associated with demurrage, a shorter period should be established when dealing with food products especially perishable items.

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Union legislation is properly implemented and enforced by the competent authorities of the MS. The option of adjusting harmonised fees to the cost of living in each MS was also excluded, as although adjusted fees could be somewhat closer to the actual costs, they would not be fully accounted by accurate and actual costing of control activities, and thus would not guarantee full cost recovery or the absence of overcompensation.


The control frequency in those areas depends on the risk, on the record of compliance of the operator, on the reliability of its own checks, on indications of possible non compliance.

This initiative pursues the objectives of the Communication on Smart Regulation in the European Union.

EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex

It is considered that whichever option is taken forward would clarify the existing rules and make them easier to apply by MS CAs. However, they underline that the legislation should specify the conditions under which this second expert opinion may be requested and what should happen in case of contradictory opinions. The option of requiring the establishment of a specific ring-fencing mechanism to ensure that fee revenues are recycled back in to the CAs’ budget would require legislative changes in a number of MS and could be difficult to implement.

Given that the emergence of food safety risks does not necessarily depend on the size of an operator, the current system is based on the principle that all should be subject to official controls, without exception, as this is the only way to ensure a risk-based prioritisation of controls, an efficient use of resources and the safety of the agri-food chain. Furthermore, as highlighted with regards to the E.

To reduce the dependency of the financing of controls on public finances, the Regulation identifies a number of control activities mainly on meat, milk, fishery production, and on controls carried out at EU borders for which MS shall collect a fee from operators mandatory fee to recover control costs[29].

The review also seeks to align the framework of official controls, in particular the terminology used, to the modernised customs decgeto.

None of the problems identified can evolve favourably and most could worsen without legislative change. Fees for milk production controls and fees for residue controls are the two types of control activities for which several of these MS do not collect fees. In this respect, CAs assessment of the changes proposed through option 4 is overall positive as improvements to the control system as a whole are expected to result from the extension of the range of mandatory fees and from the full cost recovery rule.

Existing arrangements to reduce the frequency of costly and time consuming physical checks do not allow for the continuous adjustment necessary to take account of situations where the potential risk of the consignment spreading an animal disease or otherwise endangering public health is reduced.

FEFAC is of the opinion that the MANCP and the Annual reports should be made available to the public, as this would help operators and national authorities from other Member States to review and adapt their own risk analyses. However, in most cases, full cost recovery is not achieved, due to the fact that, for most activities for which a fee is due, the current system gives the MS the choice between a cost based fee and a standard, or minimum fee, whose amount is fixed in the Regulation[31]: This wide ranging set of rules is referred to in this Impact Assessment IA as “agri-food chain rules”.


Current rules require MSs to publish and communicate to the Commission fees’ calculation methods. Nonetheless, a refund system allows for full cost recovery and ensures that competent authorities have sufficient resources to guarantee the effective organisation of official controls as opposed to the exemption mechanisms, which would deprive the CA from the fees revenue, unless appropriate compensation is granted.

The Regulation includes some important principles and mechanisms which are currently underused by MS’ CAs or applied according to divergent practices among MS.

A final draft was sent to the group, whose members provided comments at a last meeting on 27 January which have been incorporated into the IA. In addition ESA affirms that greater cooperation and information exchange would enable food operators and their suppliers to more quickly and directly respond to food safety concerns, resolving them expeditiously and thus would benefit the entire food supply chain.

The study has concluded that cost recovery rates are likely to be high for large FBOs of which there are few and low for small FBOs of which there are many. The Commission has attempted to correctly summarise and refer to those positions, which however had to be re-arranged and interpreted for the purposes of this Annex.

Administrative burden – As with Option 2, Option 4 would result in limited additional administrative burdens for CAs 52309 record the cost of controls and calculating, setting, and collecting fees. The European Snack Association, Fooddrink and UECBV believe that these two documents should be made publicly available in order to increase transparency and confidence eecreto stakeholders.

MS suggest aligning the provisions concerning official certification to the existing internationally recognised rules. This would generate additional costs for the initial accreditation and for the annual audits: However, official or CEN methods are tested and validated for certain matrixes or sample types.

admin Environment