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.
|Country:||Papua New Guinea|
|Published (Last):||1 February 2013|
|PDF File Size:||20.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Given that the emergence of food safety deccreto 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.
HPLC analysis of aflatoxins in pistachios. This IA analyses the likely social, economic and environmental impacts — be they direct or indirect — of the different policy options. Whilst it is not possible to quantify the shortcomings identified in financial terms, it is clear that the regime established by the legislation is not serving the public to its full potential.
To assess the success of the measures introduced, the following core progress indicators have been identified in line with the operational objectives of the policy action:.
As highlighted in section 5 below, in a majority dcreto Member States, micro-enterprises represent more than ddcreto of the total number of business operators at least in the four industries which are subject to the most intensive official control activities . Data on the cost of the residues controls was collected through deceto questionnaire sent to the MS at the beginning . Options 2 and 3 achieve the set objectives partly, only in the areas specifically covered by each of them, thus failing to cover the whole agri-food chain in an integrated approach, and to promote synergies and cost savings.
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 main changes would be:. Thus the impact of fees on production costs is significantly higher in this field than in others. Existing mandatory inspection fees are repealed; other provisions of the legislative framework remain unchanged.
This would also address issues of xecreto burden reduction and fostering competitiveness. The issue of transparency was addressed by the majority of the stakeholders as one of the priority of the review.
MS are against this measure, in particular as regards the extension of planning and reporting requirements to the Plant reproductive material sector note that the obligation already covers the plant health sector.
Ms were sceptical about this measure, as it is incoherent with the risk-based approach of official controls and might lead to an ineffective use of financial resources by MS. The Commission started a second consultation of MS through an ad hoc MS experts working group which met on 7 September Moreover, the review preserves synergies between the current system and relevant aspects of agricultural legislation and creates the possibility for new ones by enabling environmental legislation on Invasive Alien Species IAS to be supported in its implementation through the control mechanisms established by the amended Regulation.
Moreover full cost recovery is ensured. There is no such requirement for any of the other control planning instruments or for the MANCP as such and the long and heavy administrative procedure laid down in the Directive of residues is not justified by any specificity of the controls to be carried out.
MS believe this measure would enhance the transparency and efficiency of border controls. The EU is the world’s largest exporter and importer of food and drink products.
The EU27 imported Annex XV lists a number of significant cases where, during the last 4 years, EU inspectors have reported that the reason for identified shortcomings in control activities or for unsatisfactory or insufficient levels of controls is attributed to the lack or shortage of resources.
The European Snack Association argues that the lack of a clear specified timeframe for the second opinion test and reference test can discourage food operators from exercising their rights if told it will take 30 days for a retest.
EUR-Lex – SC – EN – EUR-Lex
On some elements two public consultations also took place in and respectively and in particular at the meeting on 22 March This Option would provide for the mandatory exemption of micro-enterprises from the application of mandatory fees and would require the breadth of operators upon which decrsto fees are levied to be appositely restricted. A significant amount of information was also available in the Commission’s “Residues Application”, which records the number of samples of animals or animal products analysed for residues and the deccreto results.
The figures and results presented in the analysis of costs and benefits are explained, supported by verifiable evidence, and clearly referenced.
The objective of this consultation was to update and complement the relevant information gathered in with fresher input decrrto to collect additional data to be used to assess the impact of the available options. FEFAC is of the opinion that the MANCP and the Annual reports should be made available to the public, as this would dfcreto operators and national authorities from other Member States to review and adapt their own risk analyses.
Competitiveness – Wider disparities amongst MSs might result in distortions of competition, if operators in one MS are charged for controls while competitors in another MS are not, with adverse impacts on the operation of the single market.
They suggest establishing an obligation on inspection authority to adhere to timelines — either fees are not charged or, at least, goods undergoing retest should be allowed to be moved under supervision to avoid incurring further charges.
Acceptance of the system by business operators is undermined by the perceived ddecreto of the system, notably by the lack of “penalising” mechanisms for the less compliant decret. With the new framework for official controls established by the Regulation, and the requirement that MS carry out such controls at all the stages of the agri-food chain, the current list of mandatory fees no longer appears justified and fair.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
The uneven enforcement of the principles and mechanisms above is mainly due to decrteo fact that the Regulation foresees no comprehensive guidance on how cooperation should take place timing, information to be exchanged, etc. It offers the best approach to simplification, clarity, coherence and reduction of administrative burden without losing the capacity of the legislative framework to account for the specificities of every concerned decretto. Similarly, stakeholders did not request that data on ways to support micro-enterprises be obtained.
The economic impact on each MS and on operators would depend on whether and to what extent MS charge sectors which are not subject to mandatory fees but which would become so under Option 4.
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. Indeed, the improved transparency of the system is instrumental in ensuring that the increased financial security of CAs corresponds to an increased accountability of the control system as such towards business operators and the public in general.
Furthermore, they could only be obtained through a complex mechanism for the calculation of standard EU costs and fees for each type of control, for the update and application of the chosen adjustment index, and appropriate monitoring tools to constantly update the EU fees.
In particular, this can give an indication of the charges which may result from the expansion of the scope of mandatory fees assuming that MS generally devote similar levels of effort to official controls, guaranteeing equivalent levels of decretk.
They insist in particular, on the fact that the method of analysis to be used is an essential element to be clarified. The same result, however, could be obtained by ensuring a clear definition of decrto costs, transparency of full cost recovery requirements and thus the accountability of the fees system as a whole, which would enable the public and operators in particular to appreciate how costs are identified and charged and how fees are calculated and used.