COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL On the overall operation of official controls performed in Member States (2014-2016) to ensure the verification of compliance with food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules
Date: 2018-09-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, food inspection, food safety, marketing standard, organic farming, plant health control, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.9.2018 SWD(2018) 402 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL On the overall operation of official controls performed in Member States (2014-2016) to ensure the verification of compliance with food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules {COM(2018) 627 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  COMMISSION SERVICES' CONTROL ACTIVITIES IN MEMBER STATES ..... 2 

2.1 HORIZONTAL ISSUES ................................................................................................. 3 

2.2 FOOD SAFETY ............................................................................................................. 4 

2.3 FEED SAFETY .............................................................................................................. 7 

2.4 IMPORT CONTROLS ................................................................................................... 7 

2.5 PLANT HEALTH ........................................................................................................... 9 

2.6 PESTICIDES ............................................................................................................... 10 

2.7 ANIMAL HEALTH ...................................................................................................... 12 

2.8 ANIMAL WELFARE .................................................................................................... 13 

2.9 ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE ............................................................................... 15 

2.10 ORGANIC PRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 16 

2.11 QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS  16 

3.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 17 

1 

 
 
 
1. 

 INTRODUCTION 

The  Commission  is  required  based  on  Articles  44(4)  and  (6)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
882/20041  to  submit  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  a  report  on  the  overall 
operation  of  controls  in  Member  States.  The  report  is  to  be  based  on  the  annual  reports 
submitted  by  the  national  authorities  on  their  control  activities  and  on  the  results  of 
Commission controls carried out in Member States.  

This  staff  working  document  provides  further  detail  of  Commission  control  activities  in 
the  areas  of  food  safety,  animal  and  plant  health,  animal  welfare,  organic  farming  and 
quality  schemes.  The  outcome  of  these  control  activities  formed  the  basis  for  several 
conclusions included in the 2014-2016 Commission report to the European Parliament and 
to the Council2. 

The  following  chapters  present  issues  of  particular  interest  emanating  from  the  above 
mentioned controls undertaken by Commission services during 2014–2016. 

2.  COMMISSION SERVICES' CONTROL ACTIVITIES IN MEMBER STATES 

Within  the  framework  for  EU  controls,  Commission  services  undertake  audits  to  verify 
compliance with feed and food law, animal health and welfare, and the requirements for 
official  controls.  Audit  reports  contain  recommendations 
identified 
shortcomings. The reports, Member States action plans to address the recommendations, 
and country profiles documenting progress with the delivery of these plans are published3, 
providing stakeholders and citizens with a factual and transparent account of how Member 
States deliver on correct implementation of EU law.   

to  address 

Two developments are worth highlighting. Firstly, “overview reports” are now produced 
for  most  audit  series.  Their  purpose  is  to  provide  a  comprehensive  picture  of  controls 
carried out by Member States in a given area, and to identify issues which are relevant to 
all  Member  States.  Moreover, 
the 
implementation of the relevant legislation as well as good practices identified. Secondly, 
greater  use  is  being  made  of  desk  analysis  and  fact-finding  missions  to  complement  the 
audit work, to provide the Commission with a clear insight into the functioning of EU law 
and of any problems that may arise in its application. Overview reports of these activities 
are also produced and published.  

they  highlight  difficulties  encountered  with 

These  two  activities  are  specifically  designed  to  support  the  Commission’s  policy  of 
legislative  review  aimed  at  ensuring  that  EU  legislation  is  up-to-date,  practicable  and 
enforceable at reasonable cost, in tune with developments on the ground, and thus "fit-for-
purpose". As such, controls undertaken by the Commission services contribute directly to 

1   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 – OJ L 165, 30.04.2004, p.1. 

2   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the  overall  operation  of 
official  controls  performed  in  Member  States  (2014-2016)  to  ensure  the  verification  of  compliance  with 
food and feed law, animal health and welfare rules. 

3   https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits_analysis_en 

2 

 
 
                                                 
the Better Regulation Agenda4. The overview reports also include an indication of planned 
actions  in  response  to  the  reports'  findings.  To  disseminate  information  on  conclusions, 
good  practice  or  lessons  learned  outlined  in  these  reports,  they  are  also  shared  in  the 
context of the BTSF programme5.   

2.1 HORIZONTAL ISSUES 

2.1.1 Audits of official controls 

To assess how Member States effectively and efficiently audit their whole control system, 
a  series  of  audits  by  the  Commission  services  on  the  Member  States  National  Audit 
Systems (NAS) required by Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 was launched in 
2016 and will continue during 2018 to cover all Member States.    

The  first  findings  and  conclusions  of  this  important  series  were  published  in  an  interim 
overview report6 covering audits to 12 Member States. 

It found that, in most cases, competent authorities had appropriate audit arrangements in 
place  to  cover  most  official  control  activities  within  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
882/2004.  The  audits'  findings  were  quickly  used  by  most  auditees  to  improve  the 
consistency and effectiveness of their official controls. Some challenges remained in some 
countries, in particular the lack of required independent scrutiny of their audit process and 
the effective follow-up of audit results, which, if in place, would have a positive impact on 
the effectiveness and consistency of official controls. 

The  interim  overview  report  also  identified  that  the  guidelines  on  implementing  Article 
4(6), laid down in Commission Decision 2006/677/EC7 were appreciated and used by the 
Member States audit services. It further highlights areas difficult to implement by Member 
States, with weaker performance or shortcomings. These learnings, following consultation 
with  Member  States,  will  be  used  by  Commission  services,  when  drawing  up  revised 
guidelines,  on  how  to  implement  provisions  on  NAS  included  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2017/625, which will replace Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 as from 2019.    

These  efforts  will  also  be  supported  by  the  NAS  Network,  which  intends  to  use  the 
outcome  of  the  interim  and  final  overview  report  to  review  its  reference  document  on 
auditing effectiveness. It also intends to discuss good principles for reporting audits and to 
possibly produce a respective document for incorporation into the new guidelines.   

4   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-

how_en 

5   BTSF is a Commission training initiative, directed at officials working in competent authorities in Member 
States and non-EU countries, covering food and feed law, animal health and welfare and plant health rules: 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/btsf_en  

6   Report reference DG (SANTE) 2017-6256: Interim Overview Report-Audits of Official Controls in EU-

Member States 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=107 

7  Commission Decision 2006/677/EC of 29 September 2006 setting out the guidelines laying down criteria for 
the conduct of audits under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
official controls to verify compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules - OJ L 
278, 10.10.2006, pp15 to 23.  

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
  
Finally,  training  on  audits  has  been  provided  to  Member  States  in  the  context  of  Better 
Training  for  Food  Safety  (BTSF)  in  a  programme  which  ended  in  June  2017.  A  new 
BTSF programme will also foresee training on audits and incorporate the issues identified 
in the interim overview report. 

2.2 FOOD SAFETY 

2.2.1 Salmonella controls in poultry 

The EU´s efforts to combat human salmonellosis have already resulted in a 50% reduction 
(2004  to  2009)  in  cases,  and  this  reducing  trend  continued.  A  key  factor  in  this 
achievement  was  the  implementation  of  Salmonella  National  Control  Programmes 
(SNCPs)8  for  the  reduction  of  Salmonella  prevalence  in  specific  poultry  populations 
(breeding flocks, laying hens of Gallus gallus, broiler flocks and turkeys) in all Member 
States.  These  programmes  have  led  to  a  significant  reduction  of  the  prevalence  of 
Salmonella target serovar-positive poultry flocks in the EU.   

The  effectiveness  of  these  programmes  was  first  evaluated  by  the  Commission  services 
during audits from 2006 to 2012. The resulting overview report published in 20139 found 
that  the  SNCPs  were  largely  fit  for  purpose.  It  also  shared  examples  of  good  practice 
which  helped  to  improve  the  SNCPs.  The  Commission  services  continued  the  audit 
activity on this  topic during a second audit series in Member  States from 2013 to  2016. 
The  findings  and  conclusions  of  this  series  confirm  the  positive  trend  described  in  the 
previous  audit  series  as  regards  the  effectiveness  of  the  SNCPs.  However,  some  of  the 
issues noted during the first series remain.   

In particular, the common practice in some Member States, that in case of detection of a 
Salmonella infected flock through a sample taken by a food business operator, restrictive 
measures were only taken after an official sample and analysis confirmed that flocks were 
infected.  This  was  done  also  in  cases  where  there  was  no  valid  reason  to  question  the 
analysis  of  the  initial  food  business  operator  sample.  This  practice,  delaying  the 
imposition of restrictive measures, allowed potentially infected eggs to enter the market in 
the  period  between  the  first  non-compliant  and  subsequent  confirmatory  test  result. 
Implicated Member States received audit recommendations to amend this practice. 

Ensuring  that  all  Member  States  report  the  first  non-compliant  test  results,  as  legally 
required,  would  further  strengthen  the  reliability  of  Member  States  prevalence  data. 
Commission services are in consultation with Member States to review the SNCPs' targets 
and  respective  reporting  of  data  in  order  to  further  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the 
SNCPs. 

8   Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the 
control of salmonella and other specified food-borne zoonotic agents - OJ L 325, 12.12.2003, p. 1–15 

9   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=59  

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.2 Campylobacter in poultry production 

Campylobacteriosis  is  the  most  frequently  reported  food-borne  illness  among  EU 
consumers  since 200810. In  contrast  to the  decrease in  the incidence  of  Salmonellosis  in 
humans, the number of reported cases of Campylobacteriosis is increasing.   

Evidence suggests that much of the Campylobacteriosis disease burden is associated with 
the presence of Campylobacter in poultry production and its supply chain.   

these  countries  made 

To gain a better understanding of how Member States were tackling  Campylobacter, the 
Commission  services  carried  out  fact-finding  missions  in  three  Member  States  during 
tackling 
2015  and  2016.  The  competent  authorities  of 
Campylobacter a priority in recent years. The objective of the short fact-finding missions 
was  to  identify  actions  taken,  as  well  as  to  note  good  practice  implemented  by  these 
Member  States,  to  prevent,  reduce  or  eliminate  a  Campylobacter  risk  in  the  production 
and distribution of poultry meat. The main conclusions from these  fact-finding missions 
were  that  it  is  not  feasible,  even  with  strict  biosecurity  measures,  to  eliminate 
Campylobacter  from,  or  to  keep  it  out  of  poultry  fattening  farms,  especially  during  the 
summer  months.  However,  interventions  at  farm  level  can  lead  to  lower  levels  of 
contamination  of  carcases,  which,  given  the  variation  in  prevalence  and  numbers  of 
Campylobacter spp. between different farms, highlights the need for further interventions 
at  slaughterhouse  level.  Such  interventions  can  be  part  of  existing  and  future 
slaughterhouse hygiene procedures.  

To  achieve  the  latter,  Regulation  (EC)  No  2073/200511  has  been  amended  in  201712, 
establishing a process hygiene criterion for Campylobacter in broiler carcasses and aiming 
to control contamination of these during the slaughtering process.   

The  Commission  services  also  organised  a  workshop  about  the  growing  problem  of 
Campylobacter  contamination  of  poultry  to  disseminate  the  lessons  learned  and  good 
practice  examples  from  the  Campylobacter  fact-finding  missions  among  the  Member 
States competent authorities.   

2.2.3 Controls on food additives and smoke flavourings 

Additives  and  smoke  flavourings  are  widely  used  in  a  variety  of  food.  Their  safety  is 
thoroughly  assessed  and  also  underpinned  by  comprehensive  EU  legislation  specifying 
how and in which foods additives can be used to improve the quality and safety of food. 
To  ensure  that  their  use  is  fully  in  compliance  with  legal  requirements  is  particularly 
important as they, if used in excessive quantities (e.g. nitrites/nitrates), could pose risks to 
human health. For this reason, maximum limits for many additives have been established 
in the EU and product labelling requirements require to adequately inform consumers.  

10  The  European  Union  summary  report  on  trends  and  sources  of  zoonoses,  zoonotic  agents  and  food-borne 

outbreaks in 2016: EFSA Journal 2016;14(12):4634  

11  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for 

foodstuffs - OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 1–26 

12  Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1495 of 23 August 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as 

regards Campylobacter in broiler carcases - OJ L 218, 24.8.2017, p. 1–6 

5 

 
 
                                                 
To establish how Member States implement official controls in this area, the Commission 
conducted during 2015 a series of fact-finding missions. The main conclusion from these 
missions was that most of the Member States visited had systems in place to control food 
additives  and  smoke  flavourings  at  various  levels  in  the  food  production  chain,  but  few 
Member  States  had  assigned  a  high  priority  to  control  them  and  the  scope  of  official 
controls  did  not  provide  sufficient  assurances  that  food  business  operators  always  fully 
complied  with  EU  requirements.  Member  States  which  had  prioritised  controls  in 
particular  on  higher  risk  additives  such  as  nitrites  and  nitrates,  had  effective  controls  in 
place. It was further concluded that food business operators face a significant challenge to 
fully understand and implement the sometimes complex legislative requirements and the 
competent authorities to verify that this is the case. The Commission's overview report13 
concluded also that improvements can be made in prioritising official controls on higher 
risk  additives  and  in  providing  training  and  practical  guidance  to  support  both  official 
controls  and  better  compliance  by  food  business  operators.  To  achieve  this  the 
Commission  established  in  2016  an  expert  group  on  the  application  of  official  controls 
dedicated  to  food  additives  and  smoke  flavourings,  provides  BTSF  trainings  and 
developed specific guidance documents14. 

2.2.4 Controls on primary production of food of non- animal origin 

Food of plant origin, intended to be eaten raw like sprouts and seeds for sprouting, when 
contaminated  with  bacteria  or  viruses,  have  been  recognised  in  recent  years  to  pose  a 
serious threat to human health.   

The  Verocytotoxigenic  Escherichia  coli  (VTEC)  outbreak  in  Germany  in  2011  (over 
4,000  human  cases  and  55  fatalities)  related  to  consumption  of  sprouted  seeds,  and  the 
largest  ever  recorded  food-borne  outbreak  in  Germany  in  2012  (Norovirus  in  frozen 
strawberries, causing nearly 11,000 cases of gastroenteritis) clearly indicated a weakness 
in official control systems in the EU.   

Commission services carried out an audit series from 2013 to 2016 to evaluate the control 
systems in place to prevent microbiological contamination at primary production of food 
of  non-animal  origin  intended  to  be  eaten  raw.  The  audits  focused  in  particular  on  the 
system of official controls on the traceability of seeds intended for sprouting and sprouts, 
the  applicable  microbiological  criteria,  the  approval  of  sprout-producing  establishments 
and the controls of imported seeds for sprouting.   

The  audits  identified  numerous  shortcomings  with  regard  to  official  controls  along  the 
sprout  production  chain.  In  several  Member  States  there  were  none,  or  very  limited 
systems in place for official controls on primary production of food of non–animal origin 
intended  to  be  eaten  raw.  In  addition,  official  controls  were  not  planned  based  on  an 
effective  risk  evaluation,  as  statistically-based  procedures  for  sampling,  or  proper 
estimates  of  hospitalisation  and  death  caused  by  food-borne  illnesses  due  to  the 
consumption of food of plant origin, are not available.  

These  shortcomings  were  discussed  with  Member  States  competent  authorities  to  find 
solutions,  which  were  subsequently  used  by  Member  States  to  adapt  and  improve  their 
official control systems. The findings and conclusions from the audits were also used to 

13   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=115  
14   Guidance notes on the classification of food extracts with colouring properties and Guidance document 

describing the food categories in Part E of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on Food Additives 

6 

 
 
                                                 
strengthen new Commission guidelines15 about the prevention of microbiological risks of 
soft fruits and vegetables. These guidelines also take into account relevant European Food 
Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  opinions  and  support  the  work  of  Member  States  competent 
authorities  and  growers  to  implement  effective  risk-based  control  systems  to  tackle 
emerging microbiological risks of food of plant origin.   

2.3 FEED SAFETY  

The  feed  sector  is  of  significant  importance  in  the  production  chain  of  food  products  of 
animal origin. In 2015 and 2016 the Commission services submitted a questionnaire to all 
Member States, followed with fact-finding missions in several Member States, examining 
the  interactions  between  private  certification  schemes  and  official  controls  in  the  feed 
sector.  In  four  Member  States  the  competent  authorities  had  close  interaction  with  the 
private schemes and had assessed their suitability as a means to replace or reduce official 
controls. The outcome in these countries was a reduction in official controls for those feed 
business operators who were members of the schemes, and a consequent more rational use 
of  official  resources.  The  Commission  services  organised  a  workshop  at  the  end  of  the 
process  to  facilitate  discussions  between  Member  States  on  the  benefits  of  such 
interactions and the challenges (e.g. ensuring data protection and verifying the reliability 
of  private  controls),  with  most  Member  States  seeing  advantages  in  leveraging  private 
controls  for  official  purposes.  This  possibility  is  envisaged  by  Article  9(1)(d)  of 
Regulation (EU) No 2017/625.  

2.4 IMPORT CONTROLS 

A comprehensive import regime, supported by effective and reliable controls, is critical to 
ensure safe imports of animals, animal products, food of plant origin and feed into the EU. 
For  that  reason,  audits  conducted  by  Commission  services  in  this  area  constitute  an 
important  assurance  that  there  are  high  and  uniform  standards  applied  in  all  Member 
States.  Audits  routinely  focus  on  controls  at  Border  Inspection  Posts  and  on  designated 
points of entry16 in the EU as well as the areas which are outlined below.   

2.4.1 Border controls to prevent the entry into the EU of African swine fever 

Effective  official  border  controls  are  also  vital  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  animal 
diseases caused by viruses in food of animal origin in travellers' luggage and via livestock 
vehicles.  The  African  swine  fever virus,  which  can  cause catastrophic  losses  in  infected 
pig herds, has in recent years entered the Union from its eastern borders. In April 2016 the 
Commission  carried  out  a  series  of  targeted  fact-finding  missions  to  the  eight  Member 
States  bordering  Russia,  Belarus  and  the  Ukraine  to  assess  how  the  specific  border 
controls laid down in Commission Implementing Decision 2013/426/EU17 and the general 

15  Commission notice on guidance document on addressing microbiological risks in fresh fruits and vegetables 

at primary production through good hygiene - OJ C 163, 23.5.2017, p. 1–40 

16  Food products of plant origin products enter into the EU through "Designated Points of Entry" whereas life 

animals and food of animal origin enter into the EU through "Border Inspection Posts".  

17   Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  5 August  2013  on  measures  to  prevent  the  introduction  into  the 
Union of the African swine fever virus from certain third countries or parts of the territory of third countries 
in which the presence of that disease is confirmed and repealing Decision 2011/78/EU - OJ L 211, 7.8.2013, 
p. 5–9 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
controls  on  travellers'  luggage  described  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  206/200918  were 
performed. These missions highlighted the need to improve travellers' awareness of risks 
that  foodstuffs  can  pose,  and  the  need  for  better  communication  between  the  agencies 
(sanitary authorities, customs and border guards) operating at all of the potential points of 
disease  introduction.  The  lessons  learned  have  been  taken  into  account  by  the  Member 
States  to  improve  in  particular  citizens'  information  regarding  travellers'  luggage 
requirements  and  better  communication  between  different  actors  related  to  border 
controls. 

2.4.2 Import controls on food of non-animal origin   

The previous report19 described the outcome of audits on the operation of official control 
systems  for  imports  of  food  of  non-animal  origin.  A  key  shortcoming  concerned  the 
assurance  of  full  traceability  of  goods  subject  to  the  increased  level  of  official  controls 
under  Regulation  (EC)  No  669/200920  after  onward  transport  or  transfer  to  designated 
points of entry for products under Regulation (EC) No 884/2014 for physical checks. In 
addition, the obligation on operators for prior notification of the arrival of consignments to 
the control authorities was often not met.   

The Commission services took several actions to help address these shortcomings. Firstly, 
new  procedures  on  co-operation  between  Member  States  in  the  case  of  onward 
transportation  were  agreed21.  Secondly,  the  model  of  the  common  entry  document 
(CED)22  to  be  completed  by  operators  and  by  the  control  authority  was  improved  as 
regards  the  provisions  on  onward  transportation.  Thirdly,  the  Commission  published  in 
2014  a  Staff Working  Document23  on  the  enforcement  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  669/2009 
which  recommends  that  customs  authorities  can  release  for  free  circulation  the 
consignments  of  relevant  commodities  only  after  checks  confirm  that  CEDs  have  been 
Implementing 
properly 

Commission 

completed. 

adopted 

Lastly, 

the 

18   Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  206/2009  of  5  March  2009  on  the  introduction  into  the  Community  of 
personal consignments of products of animal origin and amending Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 - OJ L 77, 
24.3.2009, p. 1–19  

 http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=9 

19  
20  Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of 
certain feed and food of non-animal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC - OJ L 194, 25.7.2009, p.  
11.   

21   Article 8.2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009  

22   Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009  

23  Commission staff working document on the enforcement by national customs authorities of Regulation (EC) 
No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-
animal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC. 

https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/bips_guidance_eu-reg-2009-669_staff-working-
doc_en.pdf.  

8 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Regulation (EU) No 884/201424,  which  imposes  special  import  conditions  on  certain 
foodstuffs specifically due to the risk of contamination with aflatoxins.  

2.5 PLANT HEALTH 

2.5.1 Controls on harmful pests and diseases 

EU rules on plant health aim to protect crops, fruits, vegetables, flowers, ornamentals and 
forests  from  harmful  pests  and  diseases  (harmful  organisms)  by  preventing  their 
introduction  into  the  EU  or  their  spread  within  the  EU.  This  is  in  particular  important 
given  the  global  trade  of  such  afore  mentioned  products.  To  verify  that  EU  rules  are 
adhered  to,  the  Commission  services  conducted  a  wide  range  of  audit  and  analysis 
activities in the field of plant health. Based on data from the EUROPHYT25 interceptions 
system which notifies the occurrence  of harmful organisms in imported plants and other 
objects, and a new monthly alert list, audits were focused on those non-EU countries from 
which  a  high  number  of  import  consignments  containing  harmful  organisms  were 
intercepted.  These  data  were  also  analysed  in  detail  by  a  Commission/Member  States 
working  group,  which  guided  the  Commission  in  undertaking  certain  actions  and 
activities, such as audits, dialogue with the involved countries or selective import bans.   

The result of these  activities has been a  reduction in  the  number of annual interceptions 
from 2,310 on the first Alert List (November 2014) to 1,733 as at 1 December 2016, but 
more  work  is  needed  to  further  reduce  interceptions  and  thus  potential  risks  to  plant 
health.   

In general, there is a continuous need for better identification and assessment of the risk 
factors and for better targeting of the Member States activities, in particular in the light of 
new  outbreaks  and  spread  of  pests  and  diseases  in  the  EU  as  well  as  new  information 
about the host range and vectors. 

In relation to the eradication of harmful organisms in Member States, a new module under 
the EUROPHYT system was developed for Member States to notify outbreaks on the EU 
territory. This is intended to strengthen the rapid sharing and analysis of key information 
to facilitate a more timely and efficient handling of outbreaks. For one of the most serious 
pests, the pinewood nematode (PWN), a “task force” comprising Member States' national 
experts  and  staff  from  the  Commission’s  control  services  was  set  up  to  assist  with  the 
establishment of a strategy for the control of the pest in the two affected Member States. 
Its purpose was to peer review the control strategies in place, and to oversee the effective 
implementation  of  action  plans  aimed  at  keeping  PWN  under  control.  Based  on  several 
meetings and visits to the countries concerned, an overview report26 was published. The 
report’s recommendations have already been largely implemented. Another serious pest is 
Xylella fastidiosa, a destructive bacterium which has done serious damage to olive trees, 
for which the outbreaks in various Member States have been followed closely, not least by 
frequent audits since the first discovery in Italy at the end of 2013. The audit results and 

24  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 884/2014 of 13 August 2014 imposing special conditions 
governing  the  import  of  certain  feed  and  food  from  certain  third  countries  due  to  contamination  risk  by 
aflatoxins and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 - OJ L 242, 14.08.2014, p.  4.   

25  https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosecurity/europhyt_en 
26  https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/ph_biosec_legis_em-measures_pwn-task-force_en.pdf.  

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  Commission  services'  follow-up  have  contributed  significantly  to  improving  the 
controls in the countries with outbreaks. To Italy, where the authorities are failing to stop 
the  progression  of  the  harmful  organism,  the  Commission  sent  a  reasoned  opinion27  in 
July 2017. 

2.6 PESTICIDES 

2.6.1 Controls on the marketing and use of Plant Protection Products 

Plant protection products  (PPPs)  are primarily used  in  the agricultural sector  but  also in 
forestry, horticulture, amenity areas and in home gardens. In the EU strict rules regarding 
the  marketing  and  the  use  of  PPPs  apply.  To  verify  whether  the  control  systems  in 
Member  States  function  effectively,  two  comprehensive  audit  series  were  conducted 
between 2012 and 2016, covering controls on the marketing and use of PPPs28, 29. 

Regarding the marketing  of PPPs, the audits by the Commission services  found that the 
risks  associated  with  importers,  manufacturers  and  re-packers  of  PPPs,  had  not  been 
sufficiently  considered  in  the  planning  of  Member  State  controls.  Consequently,  the 
frequency and scope of controls at these operators was generally insufficient. Controls at 
these  specialist  operators  were  further  weakened  by  the  lack  of  specific  training  for 
inspectors  and  insufficient  formulation  and  analysis  of  control  plans.  The  majority  of 
Member States do not conduct controls on PPPs intended for use in other Member States 
or  in  non-EU  countries.  This  significant  weakness  in  control  systems  can  be  easily 
exploited  to  place  non-compliant  products  on  the  market.  As  a  consequence  of  the 
weaknesses  in  controlling  the  marketing  of  PPPs,  the  audits  found  that  there  was 
insufficient assurance that counterfeit and illegal pesticides would be detected.   

Nonetheless,  the  increasingly  well-developed  official  control  systems  on  users,  coupled 
with the progress being made in the area of sustainable use of pesticides, aim to provide 
assurances to consumers on increasingly responsible use of PPPs.   

In order to help the Member States address the weaknesses in the system, the Commission 
services  created  two  working  groups.  The  working  group  on  PPP  Formulation  Analysis 
develops  reference  documents  to  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  relating  to  the 
analytical methods to be used and the interpretation of analytical results in this complex 
area.  The  working  group  on  PPP  enforcement  developed  a  template  for  the  harmonised 
reporting of controls on the marketing and use of PPPs. It also organizes workshops, when 
the need arises, for other specific issues related to controls in PPPs.  

2.6.2 Authorisation of PPPs  

Once an active substance has been approved at EU level, authorisation for individual PPPs 
can be granted by a Member State only following a detailed evaluation covering a range 
of  different  areas  such  as  operator  exposure,  toxicology,  environmental  fate,  eco-

27   Reasoned opinion to Italy where authorities are failing to stop the progression of a harmful organism 

xylella fastidiosa (point 14) 

28  Report reference DG (SANTE) 2016-6004: Plant Protection Products - Marketing and Use 
29  Report reference DG (SANTE) 2014 7567: Pesticides. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                 
toxicology  and  efficacy.  To  optimise  this  process,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/200930 
establishes  a  zonal  authorisation  system.  A  Commission  audit  series  in  Member  States 
which commenced in 2016 to evaluate these authorisation systems, found that the majority 
of  Member  States  are  failing  to  comply  with  almost  all  deadlines  set  by  the  legislation. 
One  of  the  reasons  for  this  is  that  Member  States  do  not  sufficiently  avail  of  the 
opportunities to  rely on the evaluation work done by other  Member States,  which is the 
foundation of the EU zonal authorisation system.  

These delays in processing applications could undermine the purpose of the EU legislation 
to ensure a high level of protection of health and the environment.  

The  Commission  audits  also  identified  good  practice  which  can  help  Member  States  to 
improve their authorisation systems.  

2.6.3 Controls on the sustainable use of pesticides  

The objective of the "Directive on the sustainable use of pesticide"31 is to reduce the risks 
and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and to promote the use 
of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and alternative approaches.  To verify whether the 
measures  foreseen  in  this  Directive  are  implemented,  the  Commission  conducted  a 
comprehensive survey of all Member States in 2016 which has been followed by a series 
of fact-finding missions to six Member States in 2017.  

The  survey  and  analysis  of  the  Member  States  National  Action  Plans  shows  patchy 
implementation  of  the  Directive  as  some  Member  States  have  been  more  active  than 
others.  

On the one hand, training and certification systems for professionals have been set up in 
all  EU  countries,  and  to  date  almost  four  million  farmers  have  been  trained  to  use 
pesticides  safely.  Furthermore,  900,000  sprayers  have  been  tested  for  accurate  and  safe 
application.  Member  States  had  taken  significant  steps  in  the  establishment  of  operator 
training  programmes  and  the  total  area  treated  with  pesticides  by  aerial  spraying  has 
declined significantly as this is now permitted only in very limited circumstances.  

On the other hand, although IPM is a cornerstone of the Directive, it remains underused. 
This is despite the fact that the number of EU-approved low risk/non-chemical pesticide 
substances has doubled since 2009. Compliance with the principles of IPM at individual 
grower  level  is  not  being  systematically  checked  by  Member  States.  Furthermore, 
Member States had not yet set clear criteria in order to ensure that the general principles 
of IPM are implemented by all professional users.  

The  ongoing  revision  by  Member  States  of  their  National  Action  Plans  provides  the 
opportunity to address the deficiencies identified in the Commission's report, including the 

30   Regulation  (EC)  No 1107/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21 October  2009 
concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the  market  and  repealing  Council  Directives 
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC - OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50 

31   Directive  2009/128/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council of  21  October  2009  establishing  a 
framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides - OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71–
86 

11 

 
 
                                                 
need to establish more precise and measurable targets so that the progress made to reduce 
risks can be demonstrated to citizens.  

Building on the series of six fact-finding visits to Member States in 2017, the Commission 
has  a  comprehensive  work  programme  to  visit  Member  States  and  to  assess  updated 
National  Action  Plans,  as  well  as  running  training  events  to  improve  implementation  at 
Member State level.  

2.7 ANIMAL HEALTH 

The aim of the EU animal health strategy is to have a strong control framework in place 
focused  on  preventive  measures,  disease  surveillance,  specific  official  controls  and 
research,  as  prevention  is  better  than  cure.  That  way,  the  incidence  of  potentially 
devastating  animal  diseases  can  be  reduced  and  the  impact  of  outbreaks  minimised.  To 
verify  Member  States'  preparedness  to  respond  to  animal  diseases  the  Commission 
services undertook audits in several areas, two of which are mentioned below.   

2.7.1 Member States' contingency planning to respond to animal diseases   

The  Commission  services  audited  contingency  plans  for  animal  diseases  between  2014 
and  2016.  As  the  audits  progressed,  and  comparing  with  results  from  previous  audits, 
there  was  an  improvement  in  areas  such  as  registration  of  premises  with  animals, 
the  distribution  of 
diagnostic  capacity,  allocation  of  resources  and  clarity 
responsibilities. Member States showed a positive trend in the quality and completeness of 
written  plans  and  manuals.  Procurement  procedures  and  practical  training  for  staff  were 
also  improved.  The  audits  indicated  important  general  weaknesses  with  regard  to 
emergency  vaccination  and  preparedness  for  rapid  depopulation  of  farms.  They  also 
highlighted significant differences in the capacity to detect diseases early and to respond 
to  large-scale  outbreaks.  Using  the  information  collected,  the  Commission  services 
organised during this period various related activities, including expert meetings, visits to 
national authorities, and series of practical training sessions, gathering together officials of 
several  Member  States  and  neighbouring  countries,  allowing  enhanced  communication 
and experience-sharing between national services.   

in 

Animal diseases with important social and economic impact entered into the EU in 2014 
(African swine fever) and 2015 (Lumpy skin disease), and spread to several countries. The 
weaknesses  detected  during  the  above-mentioned  audits  on  contingency  planning  were 
evident when authorities tried to control these two diseases. From 2014, the Commission 
services  audited  affected  countries  focussing  on  the  control  measures  applied  to  contain 
and  eradicate  the  diseases,  and  other  countries  at  risk  to  help  them  enhance  their 
preparedness.  The  audits  identified  specific  implementation  weaknesses  and  contributed 
to the promotion of consistent implementation of control and eradication measures in the 
Union.  The  Commission  services  also  responded  through  direct  technical  and  financial 
support to Member States, with expert emergency team missions and support measures for 
better preparedness, surveillance and response, and set up an emergency vaccine bank for 
Lumpy skin disease, in order to secure an efficient early response to outbreaks. The results 
of  and  lessons  learned  from  the  audits  were  shared  with  officials  from  neighbouring 
countries  during  technical  meetings,  both  to  show  full  transparency  and  to  share 
knowledge and experience, as it is of interest to the Union to lower the risk of introduction 
of diseases from adjacent non-EU countries.   

12 

 
 
 
2.7.2 Official controls on finfish aquaculture 

Aquaculture is an area of growth across the globe and also an important economic sector 
in  the  EU,  employing  around  85,000  staff  and  being  globally  one  of  the  10  biggest 
aquaculture  producers32.  To  get  an  overview  over  how  national  official  control  systems 
comply with EU legislation on aquaculture, including animal health requirements, a series 
of  fact-finding  missions  to  seven  Member  States  and  Norway  was  carried  out  between 
September 2014 and November 2015.  

The  mission  series'  overview  report33  concluded  that  official  controls  on  farms  are 
implemented and support the development of the sector as a whole. A number of problems 
were  found  in  key  areas,  in  particular  concerning  poor  registration  procedures,  which 
affected the ability of competent authorities to have a clear overview of the health status 
of the sector, and for operators to reliably verify the health status of dispatch and recipient 
farms.  Variations  in  the  degree  of  expertise  of  competent  authorities  affected  their 
the 
capability 
effectiveness  of  early  detection  of  diseases  in  fish,  using  passive  surveillance  data,  is 
reduced by the fact that no common approach to the concept of 'significant increase of fish 
mortality', exists.  

to  detect  health  problems  during  official  controls.  Additionally, 

It was also noted that the limited availability of veterinary medicinal products has led to 
suboptimal  treatment  of  certain  diseases  and  has  the  potential  to  increase  antimicrobial 
resistance. The Commission, to counteract the general increase of antimicrobial resistance 
and  to,  among  other  things,  limit  the  inappropriate  use  of  antimicrobials  in  animals, 
started a comprehensive programme under the "EU action on antimicrobial resistances"34.  

As part of a series of actions to address most of the issues highlighted in this report the 
Commission  services will, after  consultation with all concerned (e.g. the Member States 
competent authorities,  stakeholders, non-EU countries etc.), adopt under the new animal 
health  law35  several  delegated  and  implementing  acts  by  April  2019.  The  intention  with 
these acts is to simplify and clarify where appropriate, requirements regarding movements 
and  disease  control,  and  to  reduce  administrative  burden  concerning,  inter  alia, 
registration and approval.   

2.8 ANIMAL WELFARE 

In  the  area  of  animal  welfare,  the  Commission  services  undertook  a  number  of  audit 
activities and study visits on two key topics.   

32   https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/facts_en   
33   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=95  
34   https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/antimicrobial-resistance_en  
35  Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible 
animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) 
- OJ L 84, 31.05.  2016, p.1. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.8.1 Animal welfare during transport 

Commission  service audits have repeatedly  identified problems with  the implementation 
of  the  requirements  of  Regulation  (EC)  Nᴏ  1/200536.  The  Commission  has  focused  its 
attention  on  developing  Guides  to  Good  Practice  as  well  as  improving  co-operation 
between  Member  States,  to  achieve  greater  harmonisation  of  the  implementation  of  the 
existing  rules.  With  this  in  mind,  the  Commission  services  launched  a  three-year  Pilot 
Project  aiming  to  improve  animal  welfare  during  transport  by  developing  and 
disseminating  Guides  to  Good  Practice  for  the  five  main  animal  species  (cattle,  horses, 
pigs, poultry and sheep) transported within the EU and to non-EU countries for slaughter, 
fattening  and  breeding.  The  final  version  of  the  Guides  to  Good  Practices  is  already 
available  and  has  been  shared  with  European  stakeholders  through  a  comprehensive 
dissemination  campaign  including  elements  such  as  a  dedicated  website37,  meetings, 
roadshows, publications, etc. The campaign will continue until mid-2018. 

Member States have to provide information to the Commission services on the inspections 
they  carry  out38  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1/2005.  The  Commission  services 
organised visits of national expert teams to Member States with good practices on checks 
on  livestock  vehicles,  facilitating  the  exchange  of  know-how.  As  a  result,  national 
authorities  gave  undertakings  to  develop  some  similar  good  practices.  These  included 
better  prioritisation  of  checks,  categorising  breaches  to  ensure  harmonised  enforcement 
actions, and more practical training for animal transporters. In addition, the Commission 
services continued to facilitate co-operation between the Member States National Contact 
Points  for  the  protection  of  animals  during  transport  via  meetings.  Common  issues 
identified  from  these  meetings  and  study  visits  were  also  brought  to  groups  of  these 
national  experts  who  developed,  agreed  on  and  produced  "network  documents"  which 
provide  guidance  on  practical  implementation  of  the  requirements,  and  identify  good 
practices for controls.   

2.8.2 Protection of animals at the time of killing 

The Commission services carried out a desk analysis, a pilot audit in 2013 and a series of 
audits  to  review  the  efforts  made  by  Member  States  to  implement  Regulation  (EC)  Nᴏ 
1099/200939  on  the  protection  of  animals  at  the  time  of  killing.  This  audit  series  also 
covered  the  prevention  of  transport  of  unfit  animals  to  slaughterhouses  and  the  use  of 
indicators  of  the  welfare  of  broilers  on  farm.  The  audit  series  was  followed  by  three 
overview  reports  for  each  section  (animal  welfare  at  the  time  of  slaughter40,  animal 
welfare  during  transport41  and  welfare  of  chickens  kept  for  meat  production42),  each 

36  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and 
related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 - 
OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44  
37   http://animaltransportguides.eu/ 
38  2013/188/EU:  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  18 April  2013  on  annual  reports  on  non-
discriminatory inspections carried out pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of 
animals  during  transport  and  related  operations  and  amending  Directives  64/432/EEC  and  93/119/EC  and 
Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (notified under document C(2013) 2098) - OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 107–114 
39  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of 

killing - OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1–30 

40   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=85  
41   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=72 

14 

 
 
                                                 
describing good practices and common non-compliances. The Commission also organised 
two specialised BTSF events: one on the protection of animals at the time of killing and 
another on the monitoring of indicators at slaughterhouse to improve on-farm welfare of 
broilers.   

2.9 ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE  

In  the  context  of  the  2011  European  Commission's  action  plan  against  the  rising  threats 
from  antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR),  the  Commission  carried  out  audits  to  verify  the 
implementation of the mandatory monitoring and reporting of AMR in animals and food. 
It also gathered information on the policies to encourage the prudent use of antibiotics in 
animals.  

EU  requirements  on  the  monitoring  and  reporting  of  AMR  in  animals and  food  are  laid 
down by Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU 43. The audit series found that 
Member States had significantly improved the design and implementation of most of the 
applicable sampling and testing requirements. Some areas for improvement in relation to 
data collection and national laboratory networks as well as to the reporting of data to the 
European Food Safety Authority, were noted in the corresponding overview report 44. The 
report  also  highlighted  good  practices  which  go  beyond  what  is  required  by  the 
legislation.  

The gathering of information on the prudent use of antimicrobials was conducted through 
a  series  of  fact-finding  missions.  These  found  that  nearly  all  countries  have  a  range  of 
policies for prudent use in place. These include targets for the reduction of antimicrobial 
use  as  well  as  bans  on  the  use  of  critically  important  antimicrobials  in  certain  animal 
species.  The  combined  effect  of  the  policies  implemented  can  result  in  substantial 
reductions  in  antimicrobial  use.  These  can  amount  to  more  than  50 %,  even  where  the 
national strategies are at an early stage and the associated policies are of voluntary nature.  
The  corresponding  overview  report 45  highlights  the  potential  association  between 
reductions in antimicrobial use and reduced levels of AMR.  

Improvement  opportunities  and  good  practices  identified  during  these  audits  and  fact-
finding missions were used when developing the comprehensive "EU One Health Action 
Plan against Antimicrobial Resistance 46. 

42   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=97 
43   Commission Implementing Decision of 12 November 2013 on the monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial 

resistance in zoonotic and commensal bacteria. OJ L 303, 14.11.2013, p. 26–39  
44   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=110  
45   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=121  
46   https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/antimicrobial-resistance_en  

15 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
2.10 ORGANIC PRODUCTION  

The area used for organic farming in the EU grew rapidly during the last decade, by about 
500,000  hectares  a  year.  In  2015  it  included  around  185,000  farms  across  Europe  and 
around 306,500 registered organic operators (producers, processors and importers)47.   

The Commission started audits in relation to control systems for organic production in EU 
Member States in 2012. The overall outcome of the audits was published in an overview 
report48 in early 2016. 

The overview report identified deficiencies relating to import controls and supervision of 
control  bodies  by  competent  authorities.  The  report  also  outlined  that  significant 
differences  exist  between  Member  States  concerning  the  quality  and  frequency  of 
inspections as well as with regard to the enforcement of organic rules.  

Following the publication of the overview report, a BTSF workshop was organised with 
participants from Member States as well as from the Directorate-General for Agriculture 
and  Rural  Development  and  the  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  of  the 
Commission,  aiming  to  address  weaknesses  identified  during  audits.  The  audit  results 
contributed  to  changes  in  implementing  rules  in  relation  to  targeted  additional  controls 
and  risk-based  sampling,  applicable  from  January  201449.  In  addition,  they  provided 
valuable  input  for  the  Commission,  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  for  an 
ongoing revision of the Regulation on the organics sector50. 

2.11 QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS 

EU  food  quality  schemes  for  agricultural  products  aim  to  highlight  the  qualities  and 
tradition  associated  with  products  with  protected  names  and  to  assure  consumers  that 
these are the authentic products. There were more than 3,300 registered names in 201651. 

The  Commission  services´  audit  series  (2012-2014)  to  evaluate  the  official  control 
systems  for  the  quality  schemes  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs  (Protected 
Designation  of  Origin  (PDO),  Protected  Geographical  Indications  (PGI)  and  Traditional 
Specialty Guaranteed (TSG)) and the overview report52 published in 2015 concluded that 
official  control  systems  for  controls  at  the  level  of  producers  and  processors  were 
effectively  implemented,  but  that  official  controls  at  market  level  were  not  based  on  a 
systematic  risk-based  approach.  The  report  also  identified  that  Member  States  have 
difficulties  to  control  PDO/PGI/TSG  coming  from  other  Member  States  or  non-EU 
countries.   

47  Facts and figures on organic agriculture in the European Union 
48  Report reference (DG SANTE) 2015 8950: Organic production – Member States. 
49   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 of 29 April 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 

889/2008 as regards the control system for organic production - OJ L 118, 30.4.2013, p. 5–14 

50   Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  834/2007  of  28 June  2007  on  organic  production  and  labelling  of  organic 

products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1–23  

51  European Commission agriculture and rural development: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality_en 
52  Report reference DG (SANTE) 2015-8439: Geographical indications and traditional specialties.  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
This,  combined  with  the  absence  of  a  dedicated  IT  system  facilitating  the  exchange  of 
information  on  non-compliances  between  Member  States  in  the  area  of  PDO/PGI/TSG, 
limits  the  effectiveness  of  the  Member  States  control  systems  and  increases  the  risk  of 
consumers to be misled. However, starting from November 2015 an IT application known 
as  the  Administrative  Assistance  and  Cooperation  System  has  been  made  available  for 
Member  States,  where  geographical  indications  are  included  within  a  separate  section. 
This has a potential to improve the exchange of information. 

The findings of the audit series were used during a BTSF workshop with Member States 
in  December  2016. It created a forum to  exchange  experiences about controls  at  market 
level and to develop solutions for more effective controls.  

3.  CONCLUSIONS 

Commission  controls  established  that  overall  Member  States  have  the  requisite  control 
systems  in  place  which  ensure  generally  acceptable  levels  of  compliance.  Having  said 
that,  the  deficiencies  observed  in  certain  areas,  highlight  that  there  is  still  room  for 
improvement,  and  that  complacency  should  be  avoided.  In  this  context  the  Commission 
welcomes the huge efforts made by Member States to further strengthen their controls.  

17