Mission. Vision. Goals. Values

Transcription

1 Annual Report 2012

2 Mission The Sea Fisheries Protection Authority is committed to the effective and fair regulation of the seafishing and seafood sectors that fall within our mandate. This means all fishing vessels operating within Irelands 200-mile limit, Irish fishing vessels wherever they operate, and all seafood produced in Ireland wherever it is marketed. Vision The SFPA s vision is for an Irish seafood industry that is internationally renowned for the production and supply of safe sustainable seafood, catching or farming fish in waters where everyone experiences equal treatment. Goals 1. Promote compliance with and effectively enforce sea-fisheries and food safety law. 2. Influence effective and uniform application of EU Community sea-fisheries and food safety legislation in Ireland and other Member States. 3. Optimise the use of modern Information, Communication, Technology solutions to maximise organisational efficiency and service delivery 4. Be an authoritative voice nationally and internationally in development of policy and effective implementation of the law. 5. Continue to develop a high-performing Public Sector organisation of effective, focused, professional people. Values Collaboration: SFPA will work to ensure maximal service delivery through effective co-operation and co-ordination of activities with all our Control Partners. Co-operation: SFPA recognises the importance of adopting a co-operative approach with stakeholders in achieving its mission Efficiency: SFPA is committed to ensuring the best attainable Value for Money in its use of resources. Equity: SFPA believes in a system of regulation that is implemented effectively and equally across all Member States. Excellence: SFPA embraces the pursuit of excellence in its strategy, its operations, and in its people. Fairness: SFPA is committed to enforcing the legislation with which we are entrusted in a consistent, proportional, transparent and professional manner. Respect: SFPA adopts and expect an attitude of respect in all our actions; respect for our natural resources, for our laws, for our stakeholders and for our staff. 2

3 Contents List of Acronyms... 4 List of Figures... 5 List of Tables... 6 Authority Statement... 7 International Context... 9 Ireland-Norway Bi-Lateral Seminar on Pelagic Controls... 9 Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture EU-Norway Pelagic Technical Working Group Regional Fisheries Management Organisations Specific Control and Inspection Programmes Common Control Programmes European Commission Hygiene Package Implementation Working Group Codex Committee for Fish and Fishery Products SFPA Role in International Trade of Fisheries Products Seafood Exports Seafood Imports Sea Fisheries Conservation Official Controls Electronic Reporting Systems SFPA & Naval Service Fisheries Inspections SFPA Inspections Road Transport Checks Naval Service Inspections Air Corps Patrols Landings Data Landings at Irish Ports Irish Landings Abroad Food Safety Introduction Overview Food Safety Inspections Shellfish Monitoring Food Safety Training and Co-Operation Inter-Agency Working Groups Service Audits Enforcement Actions Fisheries Conservation Food Safety Overview of Energy Usage in Financial Reports

4 ABP AIS BIP BSA CFP DPP DG MARE DG SANCO EC EFCA EEZ ERS EU FAO FBO FIF FINS FSAI FVO ICCAT ICES IOTC IUU JDP MACP MS NBCI NEAFC RFMO RIB RTE SCIP SFPA SFPO SOP TAC VMS WHO List of Acronyms Animal By-Products Automatic Identification System Border Inspection Posts Biologically Sensitive Area Common Fisheries Policy Director of Public Prosecutions Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Directorate General for Health & Consumers European Commission European Fisheries Control Agency European Economic Zone Electronic Recording and Reporting System European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation Food Business Operator Federation of Irish Fishermen Fisheries Information Notices Food Safety Authority of Ireland Food and Veterinary Office International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Illegal, Unregulated, Unreported Joint Deployment Plans Multi Agency Check-Point Member State National Bureau of Criminal Investigations North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission Regional Fisheries Management Organisation Rigid Inflatable Boat Ready to Eat Specific Control and Inspection Programmes Sea Fisheries Protection Authority Sea Fisheries Protection Officer Standard Operating Procedure Total Allowable Catch Vessel Monitoring System World Health Organisation 4

5 List of Figures Figure 1: ICES areas in Irish Waters Figure 2: IUU Validated Exports (Tonnes) Figure 3: Catch Certificates Issued in Figure 4: Killybegs Area (Tonnes) Figure 5: Castletownbere Port Area (Tonnes) Figure 6: Health Certificates by Port area Figure 7: Top 10 non-eu countries for export of SFPA Certified Seafood (Tonnes) Figure 8: Main Species Certified for Export to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 9 Blue Whiting to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 10 Horse Mackerel to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 11 Mackerel to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 12: Herring to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 13: Whelk to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 14: Crab to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 15 Salmon to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 16: Oysters to Third Countries (Tonnes) Figure 17: Imports from third Countries: Percentages Figure 18: All Inspections by Country of Vessel Registration Figure 19 Inspections by Service Figure 20: SFPA Inspections by Country of Vessel Registration Figure 21 SFPA inspections by vessel length Figure 22 SFPA inspections of Vessels over 24m Figure 23: Landings and SFPA Inspections by Country Figure 24 Naval Service Inspections by Country Figure 25 Naval Service Inspections by Vessel Length Figure 26 Navy inspections of vessels over 24m Figure 27 Navy Inspections of vessels m Figure 28 Naval Service Inspections by ICES Area Figure 29 Air Corps Patrols by Month Figure 30 Landings to Ireland (Tonnes) Figure 31: Landings to Ireland ( 000 s) Figure 32: Pelagic landings to Ireland Figure 33: Demersal landings to Ireland Figure 34: Shellfish landings to Ireland Figure 35 Irish landings abroad Tonnes Figure 36 Irish landings abroad 000's Figure 37 Pelagic landings abroad Figure 38 Demersal landings abroad Figure 39: Shellfish landed abroad Figure 40: Shellfish Samples Figure 41 Classified Production Areas Figure 42 Preliminary Classifications Figure 43 Warning Letters by country of Vessel Registration Figure 44 Detentions by Nationality Figure 45: SFPA Fuel Consumption 2012 (kwh)

6 List of Tables Table 1 Health Certificates by Species Class Table 2: Imports from Third Countries Table 3 SFPA & Naval Service Inspections Table 4: Landings to Irish Ports Table 5: Landing Averages Table 6: Irish landings abroad Table 7 Food Businesses under SFPA remit Table 8 Food Safety Official Controls Table 9 Establishment Inspections by Risk Category Table 10 Food Safety Inspections Table 11 Analyses Table 12 Complaints Table 13 Training Table 14 Inter-Agency Co-operation Table 15 Warning Letters Table 16 Compliance Notices

7 Sea Fisheries Protection Authority Authority Statement 2012 marked another very busy year for SFPA where our workload increased due to the ever expanding business demands related to fisheries conservation and seafood safety. A significant event of 2012 was the decision in February of the Authority Chair, Mr. Peter Whelan, not to seek re-appointment for a second term. The extent of his contribution to the SFPA during his 5 year term was immense. As the first Chairperson of the SFPA, appointed in the year of our initial establishment in 2007, Peter met the many challenges and responsibilities of the difficult role of Chair of the Authority with energy and commitment and gave a strong lead to ensure the SFPA met its statutory responsibilities in Food safety and Fisheries Conservation. We are very grateful to Peter for all his good work while he served as Chair to the SFPA Authority. The vast bulk of SFPA 2012 output is delivered through the work of our warranted SFPOs working at piers, foreshores, wheelhouses, fish processing establishments, and throughout the seafood production chain and supported by our office staff at our head office and our port offices. Front-line activities such as landing inspections, administrative cross-checks, monitoring of remotely sensed fisheries data, taking shellfish samples, performing preexport checks to facilitate IUU or health certification, all go to meet Ireland s obligations under the terms of the EU Common Fishery policy and EU Food Safety frameworks. This allows the Irish seafood Industry a platform to compete confidently in the international seafood market. The central aim of all our work is twofold, to support and protect the livelihoods of law abiding seafood producers and processors and to disrupt the activities of illegal operators whose activities damage vulnerable fish stocks and who compete unfairly with legitimate players in the marketplace. The work we do remains heavily reliant on the support and close cooperation with our key partners namely the Naval Service, the Marine Institute, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. SFPA work in fishery protection in 2012 was dominated by our efforts to implement new regulatory requirements that arise from the EU Fishery Control Regulations redrafted in 2009 and A leaflet highlighting key changes was developed and distributed through marine sectoral press. A key feature of these regulations was the changeover from paper based logbooks to electronic catch recording systems. In our continued pursuit of a level playing field, in 2012 SFPA actively pursued a strategy to ensure compliance by all vessels fishing operating in waters under Irish Jurisdiction with the requirement to have Electronic Recording Systems transmitting catch details to their respective flag State authorities. Putting in place a fit for purpose system for electronically capturing the catch data from all EU fishing vessels operating within the 200-mile EZ proved to be a difficult technical challenge but worth the effort as it moves Ireland towards a real-time view of catches being made in the 200 mile EZ. Other provisions of the Fishery Control Regulation which saw significant SFPA effort included engine power verification, and fishery product weighing. In the latter issue, 2012 saw development of sampling and control plans and common control programmes with other member states, by SFPA, to allow weighing of fishery products in a manner balancing trade practices with necessary verification work. In all of these matters the cooperation of the fishing industry and their representatives proved invaluable. 7

8 In 2012 SFPA were active participants in the 5-year review of the Vigo based European Fisheries Control Agency, and strong proponents of this agency in its work towards common standards of fishery protection throughout EU waters. The EFCA has a unique role in coordinating fisheries inspection programmes involving different Member States and in developing standardized inspection training protocols. These activities have contributed to ensuring that fishing vessels operating in European waters can be sure that there is are fair and equal standards being applied by the inspection services from the many different Member States. SFPA inspectors participated in Specific Control and Inspection Programmes involving other Member States involving the joint deployment of sea-going patrols to verify compliance of pelagic fishers in EU Western Waters. SFPA continued to coordinate a common control programme involving risk-based targeting of vessels departing southwestern Irish EEZ at key periods related to fishing seasons and market conditions. In food safety SFPA led for Ireland at an EU level pursuing a more risk-based approach to ensuring shellfish safety. In this regard our work was aimed at getting good outcomes for both the producers and consumers of Irish produced shellfish. SFPA directly participated in several strategic meetings with Chinese import control authorities in 2012 helped to continue foster this strategically important market access. Such work is consistent with the continued development of a culture of compliance whereby complaint operators are fully supported by SFPA to achieve the best possible market return for their products. Similarly in 2012 SFPA supported and welcomed the successful acquisition for Marine Stewardship Council Accreditation by a further Irish consortium targeting Celtic Sea Herring. All of this work sat against a backdrop of decreasing human and financial resource available to public services including the SFPA. Whilst significant effort was exerted in seeking efficiencies foreseen under reforms of the public Sector, limitations of operational budget in 2012 significantly influenced on operational deployment decisions by SFPA. In particular the ongoing recruitment and promotion embargo has meant that the natural reduction of our staff numbers through retirements and absence on statutory leave arrangements made it increasingly difficult to always be able to provide meaningful regulatory presence even on a risk basis, across the entire range of SFPA responsibilities. Public sector reform initiatives resulted in a decreased footprint of our head office at the National Seafood Centre in Clonakilty. Reflecting on 2012 in the round the SFPA Authority is confident and proud of the performance of the SFPA and are very appreciative of our staff and their continuing commitment to doing a worthwhile job to the highest standards. We hope that our efforts, while not always popular, are appreciated for the most part by the Industry we serve on behalf of the State. As an organisation with an ethos of continuous learning and improvement we look back on 2012 as a year of innovation and achievement. We have benefitted from the cooperation and feedback received from our Consultative Committee and from the different Industry Representative Organisations together with the many individuals who took the time and effort to contact us on a range of matters, may they continue to do so for everyone s benefit. 8

9 International Context The SFPA is the Competent Authority for the enforcement of fisheries legislation in respect of all fishing activity in Irish waters and has a specific focus on working to ensure a uniform standard of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) by the Competent Authorities of other Member States and third countries fishing in Irish Waters. In particular, ensuring compliance for bulk fisheries creates its own set of challenges, especially for vessels not landing into Ireland. Our food safety responsibilities also include a significant international dimension particularly in relation to the provision of Health Certification to all consignments of seafood exported to Third Countries with the challenge of ensuring effective traceability requirements straddling both food safety and fisheries conservation legislation. Working to effectively achieve these objectives requires a high level of engagement at European and International Fora, and information sharing initiatives as outlined below. Ireland-Norway Bi-Lateral Seminar on Pelagic Controls The SFPA hosted an important Joint seminar on the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of pelagic fisheries in Irish waters at Clonakilty Head Office in June The seminar included participants from the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate, the Irish Naval Service, the Marine Institute, Marine Scotland, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigations (NBCI), representatives from the Irish pelagic industry, the State Solicitor for West Cork and the SFPA. Pictured at the opening of the seminar are; Anthony Sheehy, Irish South & West Fish Producers Association, Seamus Gallagher, Director of Operations SFPA, Mr Bjarne Schultz, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, Micheál O Mahony, Authority Member SFPA, Andrew Kinneen, Authority Member SFPA The key objective of the seminar was to share information and best practice in the monitoring control and surveillance of bulk pelagic fisheries at sea. The first session included an overview of Norway and Ireland s fisheries control procedures; the industry s perspective on compliance and control; the scientific perspective on pelagic stocks and fisheries in the North East Atlantic, and the origins, role and purpose of the EU/Norway Pelagic Technical Working Group. The focus of the second day was on best practices in fisheries control at sea and on landing. There were presentations, workshops and discussions on the lessons to be learned from previous cases and investigations in Norway, Ireland, and Scotland. Pictured Chairing the Case Management Session; Mr Malachy Boohig, State Solicitor, West Cork The final day also included a perspective from an industry group who had harnessed the benefit of compliance to achieve accreditation of their fishery. 9

10 The seminar provided an opportunity for key representatives from Norway, Scotland and Ireland to share valuable information on how best to monitor the exploitation of pelagic fisheries around the coasts of Ireland, and work to ensure the best practicable systems are in place. The effective monitoring and control of these pelagic fish stocks requires close co-operation between Ireland, other Member States and Norway to promote a level playing field of best practice amongst the Regulators. European Fisheries Control Agency The Administrative Board is the main governing and controlling body of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). It is composed of six members representing the Commission and one representative per Member State, with the SFPA representing Ireland. In 2012, two meetings of the Administrative Board were held in Vigo, both of which were attended by the SFPA. At its March meeting, the Administrative Board adopted, the Multiannual Staff Policy Plan for , the Draft Budget for 2013, took note of the Provisional Multiannual work programme for years and Annual work programme for year 2013 and issued the recommendations on the Five year independent external evaluation of the Agency. At its October meeting, the Administrative Board adopted, inter alia, the Multiannual work programme of EFCA for years and the Annual work programme for year 2013 together with the Budget of the EFCA for year In the last quarter of 2010, the Administrative Board had initiated the procedures for the commissioning of an independent external evaluation on the 5 year activity of the Agency. The aim of the evaluation was to assess the impact of the legislation, the utility, relevance and effectiveness of the Agency and its working practices and the extent to which it contributes to the achievement of a high level of compliance with rules made under the common fisheries policy. The Evaluation was finished and adopted by the Administrative Board in The conclusions can be summarised as follows: On the whole, governance arrangements have worked well. With reference to the performance element, the review of relevance confirms the strong relevance of operational coordination to EU and Member State needs and priorities The Evaluation report also pointed out that the Agency also scores well against the evaluation criterion of efficiency. Regarding effectiveness, the evaluators have found much positive stakeholder feedback, both in terms of enhanced Member State cooperation and Member State compliance with CFP requirements. As for the impact of the Agency activity in terms of improving the situation of the fish stocks and enhancing the level-playing field, it is underlined that there is limited information available, although Stakeholder consultations point to improvements, and Administrative Board members confirm this for some of the areas covered by the JDPs. It is also highlighted that the Agency activity has good prospects for sustainability. Inter-State Agreements A number of inter-state agreements in relation to monitoring control and surveillance of fishing activity in the Irish EEZ were finalised in Following from the agreement of a Memorandum of Understanding with the French Authorities in 2011, a number of review and planning meetings took place concerning certain control and monitoring procedures. Included in these discussions was the agreement of a Common Control 10

11 Programme between SFPA and the French Authorities which was submitted to the EU Commission in July A number of bilateral discussions were also held with the Belgian Authorities to develop a similar control agreement which was submitted to the Commission in November of Bilateral discussions also took place with Control Authorities in Northern Ireland and Spain to develop and enhance mutual co-operation in monitoring control and enforcement activities. Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture The SFPA provides a representative to the Control Expert Group of the European Commission Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. This Committee was set up in accordance with the requirements of EU Regulation 2371 of The Committee are consulted by the Commission when they wish to introduce Commission Regulations and Decisions. This can be at face to face meetings or by written consultation. The Committee votes on draft Commission Regulations and Decisions and votes are conducted by Qualified Majority Voting. The Committee meetings are also used as a forum for the Commission to inform and consult with Member States on a variety of issues, examples of which are detailed below. In 2012 the Control Expert Group met six times in Brussels, all of which were attended by a representative of SFPA. The matters discussed at those meetings included; - Discussion and votes on Specific Control and Inspection Plans for the Baltic, Pelagic species in Western Waters and Bluefin Tuna in the Mediterranean and Eastern Atlantic. - Discussion and a vote on funding made available to MS to assist in the carrying out of Control tasks. - Eel Management plans - Aspects of the 2013 Quota Regulation. - Amendments to Commission Regulations required as a result of meetings of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO s) such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). - Discussions in advance of meetings of RFMO s. - Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing. - Commission Regulations reducing quotas for overfishing by certain Member States e.g. mackerel and anchovy. - Commission Regulations allowing carryover of Fishing Opportunities from 2011 to EU-Norway Pelagic Technical Working Group SFPA representatives attended both meetings of this group during the course of With the new developments in quota management it was agreed that a new Working Group should be established to replace this forum which had been established under the EU/Norway agreement but didn t include other pelagic catching states. It was decided that the new group should include membership from the EU, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation. This fact finding group, focused on Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) will come into operation in 2013 with the following Terms of Reference: 1. Follow up and monitor the already agreed measures, by comparing MCS measures: a. At sea; including discards, high-grading and slipping b. On landing; including weighing and inspection 11

12 2. Conduct fact-finding missions; e.g. to explore implemented measures concerning slipping, discards and high-grading, by-catch issues in the fisheries and on landing, and measures regarding weighing and inspection. 3. Exchange inspectors and co-ordinate such activity 4. Compare data available to the Parties and study how this data could be shared e.g. by Fisheries Monitoring Centres (FMC s) and/or used for risk-based MCS to propose harmonised and improved measures 5. To study the possibility of setting up an observer scheme 6. Exchange information on infringements 7. If there are any other issues which the Working Group believes would result in more efficient MCS of pelagic fisheries the Working Group could explore as appropriate. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are responsible for the management of fish stocks on the high seas. They are also responsible for management of fish stocks which migrate through the waters of more than one State. One of the organisations that operate adjacent to Irish waters is the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). Ireland, as a member of the EU is a Contracting Party to the NEAFC. There are a number of working Groups and Committees within NEAFC and the SFPA are members of the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement (PECCOE). This Committee is comprised of representatives from all the Contracting Parties. It is responsible for advising the Commission on issues relating to fishing controls and the enforcement of the scheme. SFPA representatives attended all three PECCOE meetings in 2012 to discuss a wide range of topics including: Review of NEAFC Scheme of Control and Enforcement IUU activities in NEAFC area Port State Control International co-operation with other RFMO s International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. About 30 species are of direct concern to ICCAT. The species that concern Ireland are Northern Albacore (Thunnus alalunga), Atlantic bluefin (Thunnus thynnus) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius). The European Community is a member of ICCAT and represents all the EU Member States at ICCAT meetings. Ireland s interest in ICCAT is primarily in the management of Northern Albacore Tuna. Irish fishing vessels also catch small amounts of Swordfish and Bluefin Tuna as a by catch in the Albacore fishery. ICCAT sets the quotas for Northern Albacore and also the management rules associated with catching the quota. ICCAT also sets rules on fleet access, technical measures and in general these are transposed into EU legislation without further discussion outside of ICCAT meetings. Ireland has an annual quota for Northern Albacore Tuna but has no direct quota for Bluefin Tuna or Swordfish. There is a provision under the quota rules for Bluefin Tuna and Swordfish that allows Irish fisherman catch these species as a by catch when fishing for Northern Albacore Tuna. Irish fishing vessels target Northern Albacore from July to September. There were two meetings of this group in 2012, both of which were attended by SFPA representatives, the principal issues discussed included: Review of the multiannual Bluefin Tuna recovery plan Review of the state of tuna stocks Strengthening compliance management 12

13 Specific Control and Inspection Programmes Council Regulation , Article 95 allows for the Commission, in concert with other Member States (MS) to determine which fisheries will be subject to a specific control and inspection programme (SCIP). Formalised through a Commission Decision in 2012 Ireland has been involved in a programme of SCIP s in relation to pelagic fishery in ICES Areas VI & VII, Cod fishery in ICES Areas VIa & VIIa and the NEAFC fishery. The European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) is tasked with the co-ordination of each SCIP and this is done through the implementation of individual Joint Deployment Plans (JDP) for the relevant fisheries. These JDP provide for specific joint control campaigns between the relevant Member States and are agreed based on risk analysis of activity in the respective areas. These campaigns involve pooling of resources by the relevant Member States which will allow for co-ordinated inspections at sea and ashore and the exchange of inspectors between the relevant Member States. This is done through a dedicated Coordination Centre (CCIC) which may be based at the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) in Vigo or in the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) of the participating Member States. In 2012 Ireland provided inspectors to assist at the Coordination Centre at EFCA along with provision of control resources at sea and ashore and the provision of CCIC management through the Irish FMC. Common Control Programmes Council Regulation , Article 94 allows for Member States to carry out control, inspection and surveillance programmes among themselves and on their own initiative, without the need for a Commission Decision. In 2012 Ireland, the United Kingdom, France and Spain agreed to carry out a control, inspection and surveillance programme concerning certain fishing activities in the designated area namely ICES areas VIIj, VIIg, VIIh, VIIf and VIIe. This programme was scheduled to run until 31 st December 2013 and was expected to enhance uniformity and coordination of control, inspection and surveillance activities between the competent authorities of those Member States. The purpose of these patrols were: Figure 1: ICES areas in Irish Waters To monitor fishing activity in ICES areas VIIj, VIIg, VIIh, VIIf and VIIe. To inspect Member States vessels in ICES areas VIIj, VIIg, VIIh, VIIf and VIIe. To carry out inspections of identified High Risk fishing vessels. A particular focus of these Common Control Programmes were vessels fishing in Irish Coastal State Waters and landing in Other MS. To monitor the uptake of high risk species namely Monkfish, Hake and Megrim. To ensure all catch information was recorded correctly in logbook. To monitor the possible miss-recording of high value species. To monitor the functionality of electronic logbooks. 13

14 To monitor, where possible, the levels of discards amongst different fleets and gear types. To provide opportunities for Sea Fisheries Protection Officers to carry out inspections of vessels which do not normally operate in Irish waters or land into Irish ports, particularly as they exit Irish waters to travel to their port of landing. European Commission Hygiene Package Implementation Working Group This is an ongoing working group under the auspices of DG Sanco (The Directorate General of Health & Consumers in the European Union), and is focused on the implementing measures for hygiene legislation. This expert group produces and discusses proposals to amend the food hygiene legislation and meets at approximately six-weekly intervals. Whilst the working group deals with all types of food, the SFPA provides a representative to deal with fishery products and shellfish aspects of the agenda. This working group is attended by representatives from the Commission and various EU Member States. The working group provides a useful forum where the Commission can present proposed amendments to the hygiene legislation and consult with Member States (MS). In addition, MS can raise for discussion any issues in the existing legislation which Competent Authorities may require clarification on; such discussions help to ensure consistent implementation of the legislation amongst MS. During 2012 the working group met four times in Brussels, SFPA attended two of these meetings. The matters of relevance discussed at these meetings included the following: Parasites in fishery products Additional labelling requirements for frozen food of animal origin Summary of issues discussed at an EU restricted working group covering specific issues on Live Bivalve Molluscs EU Restricted Working Group on Live Bi-Valve Molluscs This Working Group was established by the European Commission to examine existing legal requirements regarding shellfish microbiological classification. The main focus of the group was to develop and make proposals through the Hygiene Package Implementation Working Group, for consideration and adoption by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCOFCAH), to harmonise the application of the legislation across Member States. This Working Group met twice in 2012 to discuss the following matters: Possible application of tolerances in the classification of shellfish production areas, in particular the possibility of moving towards the criteria recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. EFSA opinion on norovirus in shellfish EU/US talks on trade of live bivalve molluscs Codex Committee for Fish and Fishery Products The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1961 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to implement their Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main aims of Codex Alimentarius are to: Protect the health of consumers Ensure fair practices in food trade Promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and nongovernmental organizations. 14

15 All Members States, including Ireland, are represented by the EU, thus, before each Codex meeting, EU coordination takes place at a Council Working Party to prepare the common EU position and decide on the division of competence between Member States, the EU and shared competence. In 2012, SFPA s representative attended the Council Working Party meeting which took place prior to the Codex Committee for Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) meeting at the 32 nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius. In addition to participating in the Council Working Party, the SFPA provides a representative to the CCFFP itself. This is a commodity committee for the elaboration of worldwide standards for fresh, frozen (including quick frozen) or otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and molluscs. The committee meet approximately every 18 months, with a meeting taking place at the 32 nd session of the Codex Alimentarious in October 2012 which the SFPA representative also attended. There were 12 Standards under development by the CCFFP in 2012: 1. Draft Standard for Smoked Fish, Smoke-Flavored Fish and Smoke-Dried Fish. 2. Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat 3. Draft Standard for Fresh, Live and Frozen Abalone 4. Proposed Draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Scallop Meat 5. Proposed Draft Performance Criteria for Reference and Confirmatory Methods for Marine Biotoxins in the Standard for Raw and Live Bivalve Molluscs 6. Proposed Draft Performance Criteria for Screening Methods for Marine Biotoxins in the Standard for Raw and Live Bivalve Molluscs 7. Proposed Draft Revision of the Procedure for the Inclusion of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products 8. Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (section on Sturgeon Caviar) 9. Proposed Draft Discussion Paper on Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (appendices on optional final product requirements) 10. Proposed Food Additive Provisions in Standards for Fish Products 11. Discussion paper on Histamine 12. Discussion paper on a Code of Practice for Fish Sauce Irish Codex Advisory Committee ICAC, the Irish Codex Advisory Committee, provides a forum to enable all relevant government departments and agencies, non-governmental organisations, and consumer and industry bodies to make known their views, in a structured way, for consideration in the formulation of the official national position on all Codex issues. The SFPA representative on the CCFFP also attends the Irish Codex Advisory Committee (ICAC), which met twice in

16 SFPA Role in International Trade of Fisheries Products Irish Seafood, produced in accordance with Irish and EU law, in premises approved by SFPA, enjoys free market access throughout the EU. For trade with countries outside the EU specific obligations exist for Irish Importers and Exporters under both Sea Fisheries Law and Food Safety Law. Obligations under food safety law relate primarily to Health Certification and Import Controls, whilst the specific requirements under Sea Fisheries Conservation law relate to Catch Certification and are prescribed under legislation to combat Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing. One of the principle provisions of IUU legislation was the introduction of a certification system for legally caught fish. Any fish or fishery products manufactured from fish caught on or after 1 January 2010 and imported into any EU country must now be accompanied by a catch certificate. Equally any Irish caught fish exported outside the EU (e.g. for processing) which may then be re-imported back into the EU, must be accompanied by a catch certificate. Therefore, an Irish catch certificate will be required when: Fish caught by Irish fishing vessels is exported to a third country (i.e. a non-eu country) that may at any time later be imported back to the EU. A non-eu country requires an EU catch certificate to accompany imports of fishery products. An Irish fishing vessel lands fish to a third country and this fish is subsequently processed for export to the EU. In Ireland the SFPA is the competent Authority for both sets of legislation, providing for a more streamlined system for Irish seafood businesses accessing these markets Furthermore, since its inception in 2007 the SFPA has negotiated a number of bi-lateral agreements with other countries to help gain, or simplify market access. Service Contracts and/or Memoranda of Understanding in relation to food safety controls now exist with a number of countries including China, Japan and the Russian Federation with work on strengthening these relationships continuing throughout 2012, including: China Senior Managers from the SFPA visited China from in July 2012 to discuss issues relating to seafood trade with the Chinese authorities, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). Items discussed with the AQSIQ included clearance issues for live shellfish through airports in China, the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on aquatic products and live aquatic animals; the requirement for separate risk assessments for any aquatic products not previously exported from Ireland to China and health certification for aquatic products. Later in 2012 the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) held a bilateral meeting on seafood exports from Ireland to China with key representatives from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), the organisation that carries out the import controls in China. The meeting took place at the SFPA s head office in the National Seafood Centre in Clonakilty, Co Cork. Key topics discussed included: risk assessments; health certification; certificates of origin, amongst others. A review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) also took place at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In November 2012, the SFPA hosted a visit from a member of AQSIQ staff from the Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau in Shanghai Pudong CIQ. To provide an overview of the effectiveness of food safety controls this two week internship included visits to several seafood processing 16

17 establishments, the National Reference Laboratory in the Marine Institute, the Seafood Development Centre at Bord Iascaigh Mhara, shellfish production areas and fishing vessels around the country. Russia & the Customs Union As a result of the formation of a Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia various new requirements came into force for exporters of fishery products from Ireland to these countries in The SFPA provided guidance information on the new requirements to all Irish enterprises who exported fishery products to the Customs Union. The new provisions included some key addition to the EU requirements which exporters fulfil as part of their existing EU approval. Hong Kong The format for a specific health certificate for exports of aquatic products to Hong Kong was agreed in 2012 following a review of the SFPA s system for food safety controls by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) in Hong Kong. Seafood Exports 2012 Catch Certificates In 2012 the SFPA validated a total of 182 Catch Certificates, relating to 12 fish species, totalling 21,848 tonnes of Irish seafood for export to non-eu countries, as described in Figure 2 below. Pelagic species accounted for the vast majority (95%) of these exports, totalling 20,830 tonnes with mackerel representing 55% of the total. Herring, Blue Whiting and Horse Mackerel accounted for 22%, 10% and 8% respectively. The remaining 5% comprised nephrop tails; 2%, with cod, crab, boarfish, haddock, redfish and catfish making up the remaining 3% or 487 tonnes. Figure 2: IUU Validated Exports (Tonnes) 17

18 Catch Certificates by Port Area The majority (66%) of Certificates were issued through the Kilybegs Office, with the bulk of these relating to pelagic species as described in figure 4 below. The Certificates validated in 2012 from the Howth Port Office represented 20% of the Certificates issued in 2012 and all were for nephrop tails, totalling 489 tonnes. The 26 Certificates (14%) validated by the Castletownbere Office were in respect herring, crab and nephrops as illustrated in figure 5 below. Figure 3: Catch Certificates Issued in 2012 Castletownbere 26 Howth, 36 Killybegs, 120 Figure 4: Killybegs Area (Tonnes) Figure 5: Castletownbere Port Area (Tonnes) Health Certificates Health Certificates are required for the export of produce to non-eu countries, with the exception of; Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. However, whilst Health Certificates are no longer required for Irish product being exported to the US, food business operators are required to register their business with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Most countries accept the Model Health Certificate set out in Regulation EC No 1664/2004. However the following countries have additional requirements and their own model of health certificates that must be used. China: National Certificate for Fish and Fishery Products China: National Certificate for Live Aquatic Animals Croatia: National Health Certificate Hong Kong: National Health Certificate Ukraine: National Health Certificate Russia: National Health Certificate 18

19 Health Certificates by Species Class In 2012, a total of 1,665 Health Certificates were issued by Sea Fisheries Protection Officers of the SFPA in respect of almost 63,000 tonnes of fish and fisheries products being exported to 40 Third Countries. The vast majority, (96.5%) of these were in respect of consignments of pelagic or white fish, with shellfish such as whelk and oysters accounting for 3% at just under 2,000 tonnes. The category Others includes processed and mixed products such as chowders or mixed fish platters. Category Table 1 Health Certificates by Species Class Number of Health Certificates Quantity (Tonnes) Total % Shellfish; including crab, 883 1, nephrops, live bivalve molluscs. Finfish , Other Total 1,665 62, Health Certificates were issued by Officers in all regions, however, as illustrated in Figure 4 over half (58%) of all Certificates issued were issued through the Killybegs Port Office. Figure 6: Health Certificates by Port area Officers in the Howth and Ros a Mhil Offices issued 11% and 10% of all Health Certificates respectively with the remaining 21% percent being issued by; Dunmore East (8%), Castletownbere (7%), Clonakilty (3%) and Dingle (2%). Health Certificates by Country Ros A Mhil Clonakilty Dingle Howth 828 Castletownbere Killybegs Dunmore East Tonnes Figure 7: Top 10 non-eu countries for export of SFPA Certified Seafood (Tonnes) Nigeria Russia China Ivory Coast Ghana Egypt Cameroon Benin Togo Korea Tonnes Ten countries imported 94% of the product Certified by SFPA in 2012, as can be seen in figure 7 above. Nigeria was the single biggest importing country accounting for 48% of the fish and fishery 19

20 products certified. Russia imported 15%, China 7% and the Ivory Coast 5%. Ghana, Egypt and Cameroon all imported 4% whilst 3% was destined for Benin, and 2% each to Togo and Korea. The remaining 6%, or 4,518 tonnes were exported to the following 30 countries: Jordan, Gabon, Georgia, Palestine, Equatorial Guinea, Israel, Vietnam, Latvia, Croatia, Angola, Dubai, Turkey, Belarus, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, Thailand, South Africa, Lebanon, Kuwait, Armenia, Qatar and Romania. Nigeria, Russia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Benin and Togo imported only pelagic fish; a total of 53,169 tonnes of pelagic fish which represents 85% of the seafood Certified by the SFPA, and equates to 31% of the pelagic species landed into Ireland. Exports to Korea were all shellfish and almost entirely Whelk, with small samples of prawns and crab (15kg) also being certified. China had the most varied range of imports. Pelagic species accounted for 4,186 of the 4,444 tonnes of fish imported there, including 12 tonnes of boarfish. There were 77 tonnes of salmon certified for the Chinese market, including a quarter tonne of smoked salmon. A variety of shellfish were also exported to China including; 30 tonnes of Whelk, 20 tonnes of prawns, 111 tonnes of crab, 4 tonnes each of lobster and oysters and half a tonne of scallop. The remainder of the products were processed products such as chowder, and samples of products including small quantities of mussels and shrimp. Health Certificates by Species Figure 8 below describes the principal species certified in Pelagic species accounted for 96% of the tonnage exported; Blue Whiting, 44%, Horse Mackerel, 31%, Mackerel 17% and Herring, 4%. Whelk, crab, salmon and oysters account for a further 3.6%, with the remainder grouped as others, which includes scallop, abalone, razor clams, arctic charr, boar fish, monk fish and various processed fish and fishery products 30,000 Figure 8: Main Species Certified for Export to Third Countries (Tonnes) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Blue Whiting Horse Mackerel Mackerel Herring Whelk Crab Salmon Oysters Others Tonnes 27, , , , , Figures 9 to 16 below describe the distribution of the top 8 species: 20

21 Blue Whiting Blue Whiting 27,375 tonnes, equating to 30% of the Blue Whiting landed into Irish Ports, were exported to Third Countries. The biggest single importer of this product was Nigeria with 69%. Russia accounted for almost a quarter at 24% with the remaining 8% (2,110 tonnes) being imported by 4 countries: Cameroon (3%), China (2%), Lagos (2%) and Ukraine(1%). Figure 9 Blue Whiting to Third Countries (Tonnes) ,460 18,805 Cameroon China Lagos Horse Mackerel Horse Mackerel was more broadly distributed with 12 countries importing quantities ranging from 23 tonnes to the 6,861 tonnes imported by Nigeria which again was the biggest importer of this species at 30%. The 2,449 tonnes to the Ivory Coast represents 12%, with Benin, Egypt and Ghana taking 11%, 10% and 9% respectively. The only significant quantity going to a non-african country was the 1,479 tonnes to China, accounting for 7% of these exports, whilst the 23 tonnes to Japan represents just 0.1%. Cameroon, Togo, Angola, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea imported the remaining 16% The total 19,899 tonnes of horse mackerel certified for export to Third Countries equates to 44% of the horse mackerel landed into Irish ports in Mackerel Nigeria Russia Ukraine Figure 10 Horse Mackerel to Third Countries (Tonnes) Nigeria Ivory Coast Benin Egypt Ghana China Cameroon Togo Japan Gabon Equatorial Guinea Angola Mackerel Consignments of mackerel were certified for export to 24 Third Countries as illustrated in Figure 11. Russia imported the most of this mackerel at 28%, with Nigeria also importing over a quarter of it at 27%, China imported 2,200 tonnes accounting for 20% with the remaining 25%, (2,377 tonnes) being spread across 21 countries as described in Figure 9. The category others includes; Cameroon, Israel, Vietnam, Croatia, Belarus, Ivory Coast, Qatar, Kuwait, Indonesia and Canada. Figure 11 Mackerel to Third Countries (Tonnes) This 10,517 tonnes of mackerel equates to almost a quarter (22%) of the mackerel landed into Irish Ports in 2012 Russia Nigeria China Japan Jamaica Egypt Jordan Lagos Kyiv Georgia Ghana Ukraine Latvia Others 21

22 Herring Exports of Herring to third countries are illustrated in Figure 12. Herring to Third Countries Figure 12: Herring to Third Countries (Tonnes) 192 Once again Nigeria takes the largest share with 42% of the total 2,682 tonnes, which equates to 9% of the herring landed into Irish ports in Ghana and the Ivory Coast took 20% and 19% respectively with Togo importing 13% and Palestine 7%, such that 100% of the Herring certified for export to Third Countries went to African countries ,115 Palestine Nigeria Ivory Coast Togo Ghana Whelk A total of 1,280 tonnes of Whelk (equating to 37% of the 3,442 tonnes of Whelk landed into Irish Ports in 2012) were exported to third countries as illustrated in Figure 13. Figure 13: Whelk to Third Countries (Tonnes) All of this whelk went to countries in the Far East with Korea being the biggest single market taking 76%. Japan and China accounted for a further 20% with 13% and 7% respectively, whilst the remaining 4% (52 tonnes) were imported by China (2%), Taiwan (1%) and Vietnam (1%) Korea Japan Hong Kong China Taiwan Vietnam Crab Apart from a very small quantity (7 tonnes) exported to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), almost 100% of the crab exported outside the EU was sent to the Far East, with Indonesia being the principal destination taking 61%. The 22% (111 tonnes) exported to China included 64 tonnes of live brown crab. A further 11% was exported to Hong Kong, with Vietnam taking 3%. The 2% exported to other countries included; Singapore, Taiwan, the UAE, Japan and Korea. The total of 497 tonnes exported to third countries equates to 8% of the crab landed into Irish Ports in 2012 Figure 14: Crab to Third Countries (Tonnes) Indonesia China Hong Kong Vietnam Others 22

23 Salmon Figure 15 Salmon to Third Countries (Tonnes) The Far East was the biggest market of this product also with over 700 of the 973 tonnes (73%) exported to countries in that region; Thailand 63%, China 8%, and Hong Kong 2%. A further 18% (175 tonnes) was exported to Egypt with the UAE taking 2% and Beirut importing 1%. The remaining 13 tonnes were exported to a further 11 countries; Canada, Indonesia, Singapore, Kuwait, Armenia, Japan, Qatar, Ukraine, Malaysia, Croatia and Romania Oysters Figure 16: Oysters to Third Countries (Tonnes) Hong Kong was the biggest third country market for oysters in 2012 with 80% of the 123 tonnes being Certified for that destination. 7 7 The 7 tonnes to each of Japan and Malaysia account for a further 12%, with China and Singapore importing 3% each Norway and the United Arab Emirates account for the 2 tonnes classified as others. Hong Kong Japan Malaysia China Singapore Others 23

24 Seafood Imports 2012 IUU verified Imports from Third Countries As Table 2 shows there were 1,215 consignments of seafood, totalling just over 3,101 tonnes imported from 19 non-eu Countries in In all cases the SFPA must verify the Catch Certificates associated with each of these consignments to provide assurance with respect to the provenance of the fish. The vast majority (66%) of these consignments were from Iceland, consisting typically of small quantities (average 348kg) of fresh white or flat fish flown in for next day markets, chief amongst these being cod. Notwithstanding the existence of a trade agreement between the EU and Iceland, the legislation entails a requirement to undertake documentary cross checks to verify the traceability of each of these consignments of fish. Whilst Iceland accounts for 66% of the numbers of consignments imported, at tonnes, these account for just 11% of the quantity of fish Imported from Third Countries. The Maldives accounted for the greatest quantity of fish Imported at tonnes or 22%. This was primarily skipjack tuna, which also accounts for the bulk of the 398 tonnes imported from Thailand, representing a further 13% of seafood imports. The 316 tonnes imported from Canada accounts for a further 10% of imported fish, the main species being lobster. Taken together over 50% of the seafood imported to Ireland from third countries comes from these four countries. The 1% Others category represents 15 consignments from: Bangladesh, Peru, Argentina, the USA and Norway, totalling 19 tonnes of fish or fishery products. Table 2: Imports from Third Countries 2012 Country No. of Imports Tonnes Iceland Maldives Canada Thailand South Africa Philippines Vietnam Mauritius India Australia China USA Peru Hong Kong Ecuador Papua New Guinea Norway Bangladesh Argentina Total 1,215 3, Figure 17: Imports from third Countries: Percentages 7% 10% 11% 7% 13% 6% 5% 22% 4% 3% 1% 3% 2% Maldives Thailand Iceland Canada South Africa Philippines Vietnam Mauritius Australia China India Ecuador Hong Kong Papua New Guinea Others 3% 3% 24

25 Food Safety & Imports Under food safety legislation seafood may only be imported into the EU by a registered importer, through an EU Approved Border Inspection Post. In Ireland there are two such Border Inspections Posts through which seafood may be imported: Dublin Port, which is the main port of entry and Shannon Airport. Border Inspection Posts are run by The Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, and SFPA provides technical support as needed on request. In 2012, there 94 Importers registered with the SFPA. During the course of the year, there were two consignments of canned tuna rejected and redispatched to country of origin due to unsatisfactory laboratory checks showing elevated histamine levels in one and a high TVC s in the second. 25

26 Sea Fisheries Conservation Official Controls Electronic Reporting Systems The Introduction of electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS) on Irish fishing vessels commenced in late This onboard system consists of a laptop with specialist software known as iecatch and also a communications system for transmitting the information to the Irish ERS hub. The state of the art equipment was provided without any initial outlay by fishermen other than the annual running cost i.e. transmission and maintenance costs. In addition a comprehensive training programme was given by the SFPA to masters of fishing vessels requiring ERS. In 2012 the programme of Installations and Training continued with all vessels in the metre bracket being commissioned. By the end of the year there were 180 Irish fishing vessels using iecatch and 411 Masters had been trained. As part of the rollout, 24/7 technical support was provided to all users by Sea Fisheries Protection Officers. Based on feedback from fishermen a number of enhancements were added to the software and an updated version was rolled out to all vessels in the last quarter of In addition there were further developments to the Irish ERS system connection to the European Commission Data Exchange Highway which allows the exchange of ERS data between European Union Member States. The successful deployment of the iecatch application to all Irish fishing vessels over 15 metres has ensured their unhindered operations in other Member States and Norwegian waters. Inshore Patrols During 2012 the SFPA undertook a number of inshore patrols. These patrols are focused on the inshore fleet and fishing activity in inshore waters with a particular emphasis on conservation measures for lobster and crab. During one such inspection SFPA Officers confiscated nine berried lobsters from a vessel s keep and returned to the sea alive. The keep cage where the lobsters were found was identified as being associated with a local vessel and a case file was prepared and forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 26

27 SFPA & Naval Service Fisheries Inspections 2012 Table 3 SFPA & Naval Service Inspections 2012 In total there were 3,621 inspections undertaken by officers of the SFPA and the Naval Service in 2012 as detailed in Table 3. Inspections by Officers of the SFPA are generally undertaken on land, although some at-sea inspections are also undertaken by officers of the SFPA on inshore patrols, and Joint Deployment missions with other Member States. All of the inspections undertaken by the Naval Service are carried out at sea. As illustrated in Figure 15, of the total 3621 inspections, 64% (2,302) were undertaken by officers of the SFPA whilst the Naval Service carried out the balance of 1,319 (36%). Navy SFPA Total Ireland Spain France UK Netherlands Belgium Germany 4 4 Russia 4 4 Denmark Lithuania 2 2 Norway Barbados 1 1 Antigua 3 3 Bahamas 2 2 Totals Figure 16 illustrates inspections by Country. Two thirds (66%) of all inspections were of Irish Vessels, with 13% being of Spanish registered vessels, 10% of French registered vessels, 6% vessels from the UK and 3% vessels from Norway. Vessels from the Netherlands accounted for 1% of inspections, with the remaining 1% being undertaken of vessels from; Belgium, Germany, Russia, Denmark, Lithuania, Barbados, Antigua and the Bahamas. Figure All 19 Inspections 2012 by Service Figure 18: All Inspections by Country of Vessel Registration 13% 10% 64% SFPA 36% Navy 66% 6% 3% 1% 1% Ireland Spain France UK Norway Netherlands Others 27

28 SFPA Inspections 2012 Figure 20: SFPA Inspections by Country of Vessel Registration By Nationality The majority (79%) of inspections undertaken by SFPA Officers were of Irish Vessels. French Vessels accounted for 6% of inspections with both Spanish and Norwegian vessels accounting for 5% each. The remaining 1% (15 inspections) were of vessels from: Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Barbados, Antigua and the Bahamas Ireland France Norway Spain UK Others By Category Over half (57%) of the inspections undertaken by the SFPA were of vessels over 24 metres in length. Because of the nature of the fishing activity these vessels engage in, the SFPA are obliged under various provisions of EU law to inspect these landings frequently. Vessels m in length accounted for 22% of SFPA inspections, with 12% of SFPA inspections being of vessels under 10m in length. Vessels m in length accounted for 5% of inspections with the remaining 4% of inspections being of vessels 12 to 15m long. Figure 21 SFPA inspections by vessel length SFPA Inspections > 24m Figure 22 SFPA inspections of Vessels over 24m Over 24 metres Figure 19 illustrates SFPA inspections of vessels over 24m in length. Almost two thirds (64%) were of Irish vessels, 10% of vessels registered in Norway and 10% vessels registered in France. Inspections of Spanish registered vessels accounted for 9% of these inspections and UK registered vessels 6%. The remaining inspections accounted for just 1% and included inspections of vessels from Denmark (5), Belgium (3), Antigua (3), Bahamas (2) Barbados (1) and Netherlands (1) Ireland France Others Spain UK Norway 28

29 SFPA Inspections v Landings Figure 23: Landings and SFPA Inspections by Country There were a total of 19,684 landings to Irish Ports in 2012, with 2,302 inspections undertaken by Officers of the SFPA equating to just over 10% of these landings. Figure 24 details these landings and inspections by country of vessel registration. As can be seen, the number of inspections of Norwegian vessels exceeded the number of landings at 104%, this can occur when non-landing inspections are undertaken, for instance in relation or the issuing of Catch or Health Certificates. 94% of the Other landings were inspected, these included Road Transport Checks Consignments of fish are required to be accompanied by transport documents for traceability purposes. Officers of the SFPA participated in a total of 11traffic checkpoints in Eight of these were Multi-Agency checkpoints organised by the Garda National Traffic Bureau: 7 in the Southern Regions and 1 in the South Eastern Region. The remaining 3 checkpoints were undertaken by SFPA at the Port of Ringaskiddy to undertake inspections of transport vehicles and consignments at point of export. 29

30 Naval Service Inspections By Nationality As illustrated in Figure 21 over a third (40%) of Naval Service inspections were of Irish registered vessels. Spanish registered vessels accounted for 28% of inspections undertaken by the Navy with French registered vessels accounting for a further 18% of these inspections. UK registered vessels accounted for 10 of the remaining 14% with the 22 inspections of vessels registered in the Netherlands and the 22 Others each representing 2% These 22 others included Belgium (7), Germany (4), Russia (4), Denmark (3), Lithuania (2), Norway (2). Figure 24 Naval Service Inspections by Country Ireland Spain France UK Netherlands Others Figure 25 Naval Service Inspections by Vessel Length By Category As figure 22 illustrates, 52% (686) of the 1,319 inspections undertaken by the Naval Service were of vessels over 24m in length. The m segment accounted for 30% of these inspections whilst the 60 inspections of vessels in the 12 to 15m segment represented 5% of all Naval Service inspections in The remaining 13% (174) of inspections were of m vessels (4%) and Under-10 m vessels (9%) By Category and Nationality Over 24m Figure 26 Navy inspections of vessels over 24m 142 As illustrated in Figure 23, Just under half (48%) of the 686 inspections of vessels in this segment were of Spanish registered vessels, with a further 21% of French Registered vessels. Irish and UK registered vessels accounted for 25% of these inspections with 3% (22) being of Dutch vessels. The 3% of others were vessels from; Belgium (7), Germany (4), Russia (4), Denmark (30), Lithuania (2) and Norway (2) m Naval Service m vessels Figure 27 Navy Inspections of vessels m Just over half (55%) of the inspections in this segment were of Irish vessels, 25% were of French vessels with Spanish and UK vessels accounting for 11% and 9% respectively. 101 Of the remaining 234 inspections undertaken by the Naval Service 230 were of Irish vessels. Vessels under 15m in length from other countries are rarely encountered in Irish waters, the 4 non-irish vessels inspected were all UK registered vessels; 2 in the 12 15m segment and 2 under 10m in length Ireland Spain France UK Netherlands Others Ireland Spain France UK 30

31 Figure 28 Naval Service Inspections by ICES Area By ICES Area Figure 25 shows the number of inspections undertaken by the Naval Service in each ICES Area. Almost half (46%) of boarding s took place in Area 7J, with 21% in 7G and 17% in 7A, theses three zones accounted for 84% of all Naval Service inspections in The remaining 16% of inspections were in areas; 6A, 7B and 7K (4% each), 7C (2%), and 6B and 7H (1% each). Air Corps Patrols Figure 29 Air Corps Patrols by Month The Air Corps provide a fisheries control and monitoring service out of the Baldonnell Aerodrome. As illustrated in Figure 30 air patrols took place on a total of 217 days. In some instances more than one patrol was undertaken on a particular day, so that the total number of patrols flown was 238. The total number of hours flown was 1,305, giving an average of 5.48 hours per patrol In total 2,885 vessels were sighted, with 2,616 confirmed as fishing vessels, giving an average of 11 confirmed sightings per patrol As part of this work the Air Corps can verify compliance with legislation on vessel marking and confirm accuracy of VMS Data. Also, images of fishing vessel activity may be transmitted from the aircraft in real time. JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 31

32 Landings Data Landings at Irish Ports A total of 328,946 tonnes of fish were landed into Irish ports in 2012 (Table 4). The total value of these landings amounted to just over 334 million. On average Irish landings yielded 1,303 per tonne, Norwegian landings 47 per tonne, UK landings 1,138, French landings 2,398, Spanish, 2,242 with the Others having an average value of 320 per tonne landed. Much of this variance is attributable to the class of fish landed as will be seen below. Country of Registration Table 4: Landings to Irish Ports Number of landings Quantity (tonnes) Value ( 000's) Ireland 18, , ,929 France ,252 26,981 Spain ,319 UK ,088 22,866 Norway ,525 32,549 Others Totals 19, , ,064 3% 2% As figure 31 shows, just over two thirds (68%) of all fish landed in Ireland came from Irish fishing boats. The vast bulk of the remaining tonnage landed was from Norwegian vessels (21%) with 7% being landed by UK vessels. French vessels accounted for 3% of the total tonnage landed with Spanish vessels making up 2%. The 131 tonnes landed from other countries represented a fraction of 1% of all tonnage landed into Irish ports in 2012 and includes landings from Germany, Belgium and Denmark. 6% 68% 21% 0% Ireland France Spain UK Norway Others Figure 30 Landings to Ireland (Tonnes) Figure 32 illustrates the value of landings into Ireland in percentage terms. Irish landings which accounted for 68% of the landings by weight achieved 71% of the value of these landings. The 10% figure for Norwegian landings reflects the relatively low value per tonne for these landings as mentioned above. 71% 8% 7% 4% Having 6% of the catch by quantity, the UK landings were worth 7% of the overall value of these landings with the landings from Spanish and French vessels accounting for the remaining 4% and 7% respectively. The 419,000 value attributable to the others category represented a fraction of 1% of the total million value attributed to all landings in Ireland in % 0% Ireland France Spain UK Norway Others Figure 31: Landings to Ireland ( 000 s) 32

33 Comparative Values Table 5 shows that on average the value of each landing into Ireland was almost 17,000, with an average weight of 16.7 tonnes per landing giving an average value per tonne of 1,016. The variance in price per tonne is largely attributable to the species groups landed, with the landings from Norway consisting entirely of relatively low value pelagic species. Average Tonnes per Landing Table 5: Landing Averages Average Value per Landing Average value per tonne Ireland 12 1,303 1,065 France 18 4,317 2,398 Spain 15 3,385 2,242 UK 63 7,146 1,138 Norway , Others 8 2,619 3,198 Overall Average ,970 1,016 Pelagic Landings There were a total of 328,947 tonnes of pelagic species landed into Ireland in 2012, with a total value of m, giving an average value of 728 per tonne. Norw ay UK France Irish vessels landed 160,146 tonnes of these fish valued at m; giving an Ireland average value of 595 per tonne for these species and accounting for 67% of the 0 50, , , ,000 weight and 71% of the total value of pelagic species landed in Ireland in VALUE 000's Weight (Tonnes) Figure 32: Pelagic landings to Ireland With 68,528 tonnes worth m landings from Norwegian vessels accounted for 29% of the tonnage and 24% of the value of these landings. The 10,797 tonnes landed by UK registered vessels equates to 4.5% of the quantity of pelagic species landed in Ireland; with a total value of 6.135m or 4.6% of the value of these landings. The 6 tonnes of pelagic species landed by France were worth 13,000 representing a fraction of a percent in terms of value and quantity. 33

34 Demersal Landings into Ireland A total of 49,213 tonnes of demersal fish were landed in Ireland in 2012 with an associated value of m giving an average value of 2,183 per tonne for these species. Irish vessels landed 28,798 tonnes of these fish valued at m accounting for 59% of the quantity and 54% of the value of these landings, and giving an average value of 2,027 per tonne. Others UK Spain France Ireland VALUE 000's Weight (Tonnes) Figure 33: Demersal landings to Ireland The 10,716 tonnes of demersal species landed by French vessels was valued at m equating to 24% of their value and 22% of their weight, averaging 2,418 per tonne. The 6,120 tonnes of demersal fish worth m landed by Spanish vessels gave an average value of 2,246 per tonne and accounted for 12% of the weight and 13% of the value of demersal landings in Irish ports in UK registered vessels achieved an average price of 2,576 per tonne for the 3,451 tonnes landed by these vessels giving a total value of 8.98m which represents 8% of the value and 7% of the quantity of these landings. The 128 tonnes landed by vessels from other countries had a total value of 413,000 equating to less than 0.5% of the weight and value of these landings. Shellfish Landings into Ireland The total value of Shellfish landed in Ireland in 2012 was m for 39,534 tonnes giving an average value of 2,313 per tonne. The vast bulk came from Irish vessels which accounted for 85% of the quantity and 91% of the value of these landings. UK vessels landed a further 5,756 tonnes, or 14.5% of this tonnage valued at 7.676m accounting for 8.5% of shellfish landing. Others UK Spain France Ireland VALUE 000's Weight (Tonnes) Figure 34: Shellfish landings to Ireland The remaining 177 tonnes of shellfish landed was worth 608,000 accounting for less than 0.5% of the tonnage and value of these landings. There were 726 tonnes of deep-sea species landed with a total value of 1.11m giving an average value of 1,528 per tonne and accounting for less that half of one percent of the quantity and value of landings to Irish ports in

35 Irish Landings Abroad Irish Vessels landed a total of 57,336 tonnes of fish to ports in seven countries, with a total value of just over 32.8 million, giving an average value of 572 per tonne for these landings. These landings equated to 20% of the total 279,898 tonnes caught by Irish vessels in 2012 and 12% of its million value. Table 6: Irish landings abroad Country Quantity (tonnes) Value ( 000's) Denmark 19,553 2,857 Norway 12,830 10,142 Faroe Islands 9,671 1,363 UK 9,279 8,811 France 3,782 4,893 Netherlands 1,232 1,407 Spain 989 3,345 Totals 57,336 32,818 Figures 36 and 37 illustrate these catches by tonnage and value. 7% Just over a third (34%) of these fish were landed to ports in Denmark, with over half being landed to ports in Norway (22%), the Faroe Islands (17%) and the UK (16%). 17% 16% 2% 2% The remaining 11% was landed to France (7%), Spain (2%) and the Netherlands (2%). The landings into ports in Denmark yielded million equating to 9% of the total value of Irish landings abroad, and averaging 146 per tonne for these landings. Landings into Norway were valued at million, 32% of the total value and averaging 790 per tonne. 22% Denmark Faroe Islands France Spain 34% Norway UK Netherlands The 9,671 tonnes landed in the Faroe Islands equated to 4% of the value of Irish landings abroad giving an average value of 141 per tonne. The UK landings represented 27% of the value of fish landed abroad yielding million and averaging 950 per tonne. Landings to France were valued at million for 7% of these catches giving an average of 1,294 per tonne. 4% Figure 35 Irish landings abroad Tonnes 15% 27% 4% 10% 31% The average price per tonne achieved for landings into the Netherlands was 1,142 with the landings to Spain yielding the highest average price per tonne at 3,382. Denmark Faroe Islands France Spain Norway UK Netherlands 9% Figure 36 Irish landings abroad 000's 35

36 Pelagic landings abroad Pelagic landings abroad are described in figure 38 and amounted to a total of 54,170 tonnes with an associated value of million, averaging 471 per tonne, and representing 25% of the weight and 21% of the value of all pelagic species landed by Irish vessels in Norway Denmark Faroe Islands Landings into France amounted to 3,758 tonnes valued at million or 1,293 per tonne. Landings to the Faroe Islands yielded the lowest average price with 9,671 tonnes yielding million (141 per tonne) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 The 12,457 tonnes of pelagic species landed to Norway averaged 752 per tonne for a total of million. 19,487 tonnes were landed to ports in Denmark valued at million ( 142 per tonne), with the 8,797 tonnes landed into the UK having a total value of million giving an average price of 814 per tonne for these species. UK France UK Weight (Tonnes) Value (000's) Figure 37 Pelagic landings abroad Demersal Landings abroad Irish vessels landed a total of 1,305 tonnes of demersal species to three countries with an associated value of million, equating to 4% of the tonnage and 6% of the value of demersal species landed by Irish vessels in Norway Spain 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 The 930 tonnes landed to Spain were valued at million, averaging 3,470 per tonne and accounting for 71% of the quantity and 80% of the value of these landings. Figure 38 Demersal landings abroad 363 tonnes were landed to Norway valued at 752,000 giving 2,072 per tonne and accounting for 28% of the quantity and 19% of the value of these landings. The 12 tonnes landed into the UK had a total value of 31,000 equating to 2,583 per tonne and accounting for just 1% of both the quantity and value of demersal landings abroad. Shellfish landed abroad The 1,849 tonnes of shellfish landed abroad by Irish vessels was valued at a total of million giving and average of 1,769 per tonne, and representing 5% of the quantity and 4% of the value of all shellfish caught by Irish vessels in Netherlands Denmark Weight (Tonnes) Value (000's) Landings to the UK achieved the highest relative price with the France 469 tonnes averaging 3,456 per tonne yielding a total of million. The 1,232 tonnes of shellfish landed in the Weight (Tonnes) Value (000's) Netherlands yielded million averaging 1,066 per Figure 39: Shellfish landed abroad tonne- the lowest average price achieved. In all, 148 tonnes of shellfish were landed to Spain, Denmark and France with a total value of 242,000 averaging 1,635 per tonne for these landings. Deep-sea Species landed abroad A small quantity of deep sea species were also landed abroad, totalling 13 tonnes, these fish were valued at 23,000 averaging 1,769 per tonne. UK Spain 36

37 Food Safety Introduction The SFPA is the Competent Authority for the implementation of food safety legislation in the Irish Seafood sector up to the point of retail/catering. The legislation in place covers all aspects of safe food production including premises and facilities, staff training and competence, microbiological and other food safety standards and the implementation of Food Safety Management Systems. The legislation clearly establishes that the onus is on the food producer to ensure the safety of the product they place on the market: A food business operator is best placed to devise a safe system for supplying food and ensuring that the food it supplies is safe; thus, it should have primary legal responsibility for ensuring food safety (Regulation 178/ 2002). Member States are required to enforce food law, and monitor and verify that the relevant requirements of food law are fulfilled by food and feed business operators at all stages of production, processing and distribution. For that purpose, they shall maintain a system of official controls and other activities as appropriate to the circumstances, including public communication on food and feed safety and risk, food and feed safety surveillance and other monitoring activities covering all stages of production, processing and distribution (Regulation 178/2002) Food safety legislation has two principal purposes: 1. The provision of a high level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumers' interests, including fair practices in food trade, taking account of, where appropriate, the protection of animal health and welfare, plant health and the environment 2. To aim to achieve free movement in the Community of food and feed manufactured or marketed according to the general principles and requirements laid down in Community law. Overview 2012 The SFPA undertakes it food safety functions in accordance with the terms of a Service Contract agreement with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), and oversees in excess of 2,600 food business operations as described in Table 7. Table 7 Food Businesses under SFPA remit Food Business No. of Businesses Approved Establishments on Land 189 Fishing Vessels (Registered) 2,216 Factory and Freezer Vessels (Approved) 34 Registered FBOs on land 81 Ice plants 12 Classified Shellfish Production Areas 131 Total 2,663 All food business operations must be registered with the relevant Competent Authority. Registration is a straightforward administrative procedure which simply requires providing specific information to the Competent Authority. Approved establishments or vessels, on the other hand, are food business operations which have met the additional requirements set down in food law for food business operations who engage food processing or related activities. The 2,216 registered fishing vessels constitute 83% of the food business operations that fall under the remit of the SFPA. The 34 Factory and freezer vessels account for 1% with approved establishments on land accounting for a further 7%. All food business operations approved by the SFPA are listed on the SFPA website at 37

38 Shell fish producers constitute 5% of food businesses within the remit of the SFPA. However, the implementation of the classification and biotoxin monitoring programmes in this sector accounts for a significant focus of the obligatory food safety control activities undertaken by the SFPA as will be seen below. The remaining 4% of businesses included registered food businesses such as distributers, wholesalers and ice plants. An additional 13 food Businesses were granted approval for value added activities in 2013 these included 8 Vessels approved for onboard freezing of fish and 5 food processing establishments. Food Safety Inspections 2012 The SFPA undertook a total of 2,653 inspections across the seafood sector in 2012, as described in Table 8. Inspections of shellfish production areas accounted for almost two thirds of these inspections at 65%. Of the remaining 929 inspections (35%) inspections of Approved Establishments on land accounted for 16% with inspections of seafood undertaken at the point of landing or first sale accounting for a further 10%. Table 8 Food Safety Official Controls 2012 Food Business No. of Inspections Approved Establishments on Land 420 Fishing Vessels (Irish) 188 Fishing Vessels (Non Irish) 18 Factory and Freezer Vessels (Irish - 15 Approved) Registered FBO s on land 15 Ice plants 6 Bivalve Mollusc Production Areas 1724 Transport 13 Landing and First Sale 254 Total 2653 In total food safety inspections of fishing vessels accounted for 8% comprising; Fishing vessels (Irish): 7%, Fishing Vessels (non-irish) 0.6% and Irish factory and freezer vessels 0.4%. The inspections of Ice plants and transport vehicles account for the remaining 1% of food safety inspections undertaken by SFPO s in Inspections of Approved Food Businesses by Risk Category As described in Table 9, high risk food business operations, accounted for 51% of these inspections, establishments categorised as medium risk; 26% with low risk premises accounting for the remaining 23% of these inspections. These figures incorporate approved establishments on land and approved factory and freezer vessels. Table 9 Establishment Inspections by Risk Category Risk Category No. of Inspections High 218 Medium 109 Low 99 Total 426 Inspections by Type and Risk Category The 95 audits undertaken represented 22% of this work area. Audits are primarily focused on a detailed assessment of the implementation of food safety management systems in a food business operation, verification of records and other relevant documentation such as sample results and training records may also form a significant element of such audits. Table 10 Food Safety Inspections 2012 Type of High Medium Low Totals Inspection Audit Inspection Follow-up Complaint Spot Checks Totals

39 The 180 inspections represent a further 42% with spot checks accounting for 23% of theses inspections. The remaining 13% comprised follow-up inspections (11%) and inspections in response to complaints (3%). Official Control Samples Table 11 describes the 2,613 analyses of seafood samples undertaken for the purposes of official controls and the parameters assessed. Table 11 Analyses 2012 Parameter Analyses Parameter Analyses Residues 0 Nitrate 1 4-Hexylresorcinol 39 Nitrite 1 Not Stated/Not Stated 10 Norovirus GI 45 Agmatine 5 Norovirus GII 45 Aluminium 1 Odour 1 Ammonium 1 Perfluorobutane Sulphonic Acid (PFBS) 20 Arsenic 17 Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PGBA) 20 Boric Acid 2 Perflurodecanoic acid (PFDeA) 20 Cadaverine 229 Perfluroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 20 Cadmium 41 Perflurohexane Sulphonic Acid (PFHxS) 20 Carbon Monoxide 6 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 20 Chromium 19 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 20 Clostridium perfingens 11 Perfluorooctance sulphonic acid (PFOs) 20 Coagulase Positive Staph 49 Perflurooundecanoic Acid (PFUnA) 20 Coliforms 63 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 20 Colour PT-CO 1 Putrescine oC 1 Salmonella spp 142 Enterobacteriaceae 3 Sertonin 5 Enterococci (Feacal Strp) 87 Staphylococcus aureus 36 E. Coli 250 Staphylococcus aureus weak Pos coagulase 2 Histamine 267 Sulphur Dioxide 41 Hydrogen Ions 1 Total Arsenic 20 Inorganic Arsenic 20 Total Coliforms 1 Iron 1 Total Heavy Metals 1 Lead 40 not stated/not stated 1 Listeira monocytogens 250 Turbidity 1 Listeria spp 74 30oC/not stated 41 Listeria spp (non momcytogenes) 5 not stated 35 Manganese 1 Tyramone 229 Mercury 21 β-glucuronidase +ve Ecoli 21 Sub total 1515 Sub total 1098 TOTAL:

40 Shellfish Monitoring The SFPA implements two main shellfish monitoring programmes: the National Classification Programme and the National Biotoxin Monitoring Programme. The requirements for the Classification programme are set out in European Regulations and require that all bivalve mollusc production areas are subjected to a sampling programme to establish background microbiological levels, the results of which are assessed to assign a Classification to each area. Shellfish from areas which have a Class A status may be sold for human consumption without further treatment. Shellfish from areas classed B or C must be re-laid or processed as necessary before being supplied for human consumption. In addition to complying with the Classification standard, food business operators may only harvest from areas which have an Open status under the biotoxin monitoring programme. The biotoxin monitoring programme monitors the levels of a range of naturally occurring phytoplankton in seawater and biotoxins in shellfish before harvesting, with food business operators taking the bulk of theses samples. If the levels detected exceed the limits laid down in the legislation the area is closed for harvest until further sampling has established that the area may be opened. Within these two programmes the SFPA undertakes shellfish sampling for the monitoring programme associated with the implementation of the Shellfish Waters Directive. There are a total of 86 shellfish production areas around the Irish coast, containing 137 production sites. As some areas are classified for the production of more than one shellfish species there are 148 sample points nationwide. Figure 40: Shellfish Samples As figure 41 shows, there were a total of 1,857 samples of shellfish taken by SFPA under these monitoring programmes. 167 The 167 samples taken for biotoxin analysis represent 9% of the shellfish samples taken with the 61 Shellfish Waters samples accounting for 3%. Water samples for Phytoplankton analysis are also taken as part of the biotoxin monitoring programme However, the vast bulk of these samples; 88%, were taken for microbiological analysis for the Classification programme. Each year the sample results for the preceding 36 months are assessed and a Classification Status assigned to each production area. As figure 41 shows, just over half of the production areas were assigned a B Classification. Classification Biotoxin Shellfish Waters Figure 41 Classified Production Areas % were Classified as reaching A of Seasonal A standard. Seasonal classifications are assigned to areas when the three year data set shows a clear seasonal trend in the data for a particular area. The two C classified areas represent less than 2% of production areas

41 Figure 42 Preliminary Classifications 2012 Food Safety Complaints Table 12 Complaints 2012 Thirty Five food safety related complaints were received in 2012, as described in Table 12. Two thirds of these (66%) were classified as food complaints relating to suspected contamination of food products. Complaints in relation to the possibility of illness In addition, 9 areas were assigned Preliminary Classifications in 2012, as illustrated in Figure 42. Classifications are described as preliminary when an area is being classified for the first time or after a period in suspension. The term may also be used where an incomplete dataset of results was to hand. The current list of classified areas and the species for which they are classified may be viewed on the SFPA website at Category Number of Complaints caused by the consumption of seafood accounted for a further 28% of the complaints received whilst the remaining 6% related to one complaint in respect of a food premises and another relating to possible illegal harvesting of shellfish. Food Safety Training and Co-Operation Food Complaint 23 Food Poisoning 10 Food Business 1 Other (illegal harvesting of Shellfish) 1 Total 35 There were 13 training events in 2012, both national and international. FSAI regional meetings had the greatest number of participants. These training days are held by the FSAI each year to provide an opportunity to discuss emerging issues and best practice in seafood safety. The majority of training events are arranged to ensure officers are informed of the latest developments in legislation and standards pertaining to the production and placing on the market of safe food. Table 13 Training 2012 Topic Number of Attendees Purification of live bivalve molluscs 16 Cooking and Pasteurization 10 Microbiology for non-microbiologists 11 Food Safety Auditing Training 13 DG Sanco Food Hygiene & Control of 4 fishery products and live bivalve molluscs DG Sanco Workshop on Food Additives 1 Shelf-Life Determination 13 FSAI HACCP Workshop 10 FSAI Regional Meetings 46 Food Law Update 7 EU HACCP Training 2 US FDA Workshop 1 Icelandic BIM Audit and TRG Course 1 41

42 Inter-Agency Working Groups The SFPA works closely with a number of agencies in implementing food safety legislation. Regular liaison with the FSAI and Marine Institute is required to ensure effective implementation of the shellfish monitoring programmes. Trilateral meetings take place to evaluate the ongoing implementation of these programmes. The Molluscan Shellfish Safety Committee is a national body which includes these three organisations, BIM, the HSE and industry representatives who work together to ensure best practice in the management of food safety in this sector. Table 14 Inter-Agency Co-operation Name of Group Number of Meetings Attended FSAI Liaison Meetings 4 FSAI Microbiological Criteria Working 1 Group Meeting SFPA/FSAI/BIM meeting regarding 1 Guidance for Cold Smoked Salmon Producers Bilateral Meetings 3 FSAI Specific Labelling Issue 1 FSAI/ Opensky/SFPA Database 3 meetings Molluscan Shellfish Safety Committee 3 Trilateral (FSAI/SFPA/MI) 1 Service Audits SFPA is subject to external audit from a number of independent external agencies to assess and verify the quality and effectiveness of its regulatory activities. In respect of the Food Safety element of our brief the SFPA is subject to Audit by the FSAI with respect to Service Contract matters and by the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) with respect to the enforcement of European Food Law. In 2012 there was one Audit by the FSAI and two by the FVO as described below. FSAI Audit This was an audit of official controls. The objective of the audit was to verify the effectiveness and appropriateness of official controls in approved fish and fishery product food business operations supervised by SFPA. As part of the verification the audit team carried out checks in SFPA regional offices and visited a number of establishments producing fishery products and live bivalve molluscs. FVO Audits General Review Mission The objective of this wide-ranging Audit was to review progress on the implementation of recommendations identified during previous FVO Missions in Ireland. During this review mission the audit team met with representatives of the relevant Competent Authorities including the SFPA to discuss in detail the status of recommendations from all FVO Missions since SFPA provided comprehensive updates on Corrective Action taken in response to recommendations from the FVO Mission which took place in May 2011 in order to evaluate the food safety control systems in place governing the production and placing on the market of bivalve molluscs. To evaluate the monitoring of residues and contaminants in live animals and animal products. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the implementation of national measures, aimed at the control of residues and contaminants in live animals and animal products. The audit was based on Council Directive 96/23/EC and other relevant EU legislation in this field. The audit focused on the roles of the competent authorities at central and regional levels, the legal and administrative measures in place to give effect to the relevant EU requirements, residue controls and the performance of residue laboratories. Attention was paid to examining the implementation of 42

43 corrective actions promised in response to relevant recommendations made in the report of a previous FVO residues audit to Ireland (DG (SANCO)/2008/7780 MR Final) in April

44 Enforcement Actions Fisheries Conservation A total of 159 enforcement actions were implemented in respect of fisheries conservation law in 2012, 117 of which were warning letters, with 23 vessels detained and 14 case files being forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The remaining 5 enforcement actions were cases completed in court. Warning Letters As described in table 15, almost two thirds (64%) of the warning letters issued in 2012 were issued by the SFPA. The biggest single category of infringements were in relation to logbook infringements (30%) with failure to adhere to technical measures (e.g. mesh specifications) accounting for a further 30%. Failing to comply with electronic recording and reporting system (ERS) requirements gave rise to 9% of these actions with failure to comply with prior notification of landing rules (hail and port entry) accounted for a further 8%, as did failure to facilitate an inspection. Just one of the 117 letters was issued to a premises; this was in relation to the sale of undersize species. Table 15 Warning Letters 2012 Offences SFPA Navy Total Control measures ERS Failure to operate Hail and port entry Illegal fishing 2 2 Landing controls - ANF 1 1 Licence conditions Logbook infringement National measures 8 8 Prohibited Species 3 3 Technical measures Marking and documentation 4 4 VMS 2 2 Failure to facilitate inspection 9 9 Undersize Species (Premises) 1 1 TOTALS Warning letters by Country of Vessel Registration. Figure 43 Warning Letters by country of Vessel Registration Figure 43 illustrates the warning letters served by Country of vessel registration. The majority, 72% were served on Irish registered vessels with 9% and 10% respectively being served on vessels registered to France and the UK. Spanish registered vessels accounted for a further 4% with the remaining 5% being served on vessels registered to Belgium, Lithuania and Norway Ireland France Spain UK Belgium Norway Lithuania 44

45 Fishing Vessel Detentions As illustrated in Figure 44 over two thirds (70%) of the vessels detained by the SFPA or Naval Service in 2012 were Irish registered vessels. Spanish registered vessels accounted for 17%, French and German registered vessels 9% each with the UK accounting for the remainder. Figure 44 Detentions by Nationality Cases Completed Ireland France Spain UK Germany There were a total of 5 cases covering 7 offences completed through the courts in 2012 in some of these cases the events in question did not take place in 2012, but in previous years. The total fines handed down was 60,750, whilst the total forfeits for Catch and gear was imposed was 115,000. All of the vessels concerned in these cases were from the larger category of vessel, i.e. >25 metres. Three of the vessels were Irish registered vessels, one was Spanish registered and the fifth was a UK registered vessel. Three of the seven offences concerned incorrect logging of catch information, two concerned illegal fishing, one concerned the absence of essential documentation with the remaining offence concerning failure to provide a boarding ladder, which can constitute a significant risk to officers attempting to board vessels at sea. Food Safety There were 15 food safety enforcement actions taken in 2012; 8 Compliance Notices under SI 432 of 2010 and 4 Improvement Notices, 2 Prohibition Orders and 1 Closure Order under the Food Safety of Ireland Act Compliance Notices Table 16 Compliance Notices 2012 The 8 Compliance Notices served under SI 432 of 2012 Nature of Infringement Number covered a total of 12 infringements of food safety law Shellfish Harvesting 3 as described in Table 16. Food Safety Management Systems 2 Bivalve molluscs may only be harvested from areas Animal By Products 2 which have been classified for that purpose by the SFPA. In addition to facilitate traceability all shellfish Approval 2 consignments must be accompanied by a gatherers document which give details of the harvesting area, harvester and destination. Structural Hygiene Labelling Microbiological Criteria Total One of the contraventions of shellfish harvesting requirements related to harvesting from an unclassified area, one to inaccurate information on a gatherers document and one to consignments of live bivalve molluscs with no associated gatherers document. The implementation of a Food Safety Management System is a basic requirement for food businesses. This requires businesses to assess each step in their food business operation from a food safety perspective, identify areas where risks to the safety of their product could arise and put in 45

46 place the necessary steps to eliminate or reduce those risks to acceptable levels. Failure to implement such a planned approach to the management of food safety could result in unsafe food being placed on the market. In 2012 inadequate food safety management systems were found in two premises. Improper storage and/or handling of Animal By Products (ABP s) may present a risk to human or animal health or the environment. ABP s include fish carcasses and other waste products of animal origin. In both of these instances the infringements concerned improper storage and labelling of ABP s. Food businesses involved in the processing of seafood must be approved by the SFPA under food safety legislation. Approved premises are assigned an approval number which must appear on the labels of food produced from that premises, thus allowing for traceability of the product through the food chain. The Certificate of Approval will also specify the nature and extend of the food processing permissible in a particular business. The two infringements identified in 2012 related to one food business that was undertaking processing activities in an unapproved premises and one instance where an approved business was exceeding the provisions of its Approval by producing processed product for which it was not approved. Structural hygiene refers to the fixtures finishes and services provided within a food premises, inadequate structural hygiene can present a significant risk to food safety, whilst incomplete or inaccurate labelling misinforms the consumer and can render a product untraceable. Microbiological criteria are specified in EU Regulation 2013 of 2005 for a variety of foodstuffs including seafood. Compliance with the limits laid down in this regulation is essential to the production of safe food. In 2012 one instance of non-compliance with microbiological standards was identified and dealt with by way of a Compliance Notice. Improvement Notices Improvement Notices are served under the provisions of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) Act, and may be issued when an authorised officer is of the opinion that an activity, or the condition of premises, will or is likely to pose a risk to public health. Should a food business operator fail to comply with the requirements in an improvement notice an application may be made to the District Court requesting an Improvement Order to instruct the food business operator to implement the specified improvements. All 4 Improvement notices served in 2012 related to out of range microbiological results from samples of shellfish taken from classified production areas. Prohibition Orders Prohibition orders are also served under the provisions of the FSAI Act, and may be issued when an authorised officer is of the opinion that the food production activities/operation in question involves, or are likely to involve, a serious risk to public health. The two prohibition orders served in 2012 were in relation to shellfish production. In once case a prohibition order was served in respect of oysters which had been harvested from an unclassified area. In the second case a prohibition order was served in relation to the placing on the market of shellfish that was potentially unsafe for human consumption. Closure Order Closure Orders are also served under the provisions of the FSAI Act and may be issued where an Authorised Officer is of the opinion that there is, or is likely to be, a grave and immediate danger to public health at, in or on any premises or part thereof or where the authorised officer is unable to 46

47 establish to his or her satisfaction, due to any obstruction, the level of or the extent to which such a danger, if any, exists. The Closure Order served in 2012 related to both structural and operational non compliances in a food premises which were believed to pose an immediate risk to public health. The legislation provides that a food business operator may appeal a Closure to the District Court; no such appeal was lodged in this case. 47

48 Health and Safety SFPA Health and Safety Goal The SFPA has a strong commitment to providing a safe and healthy work environment for all SFPA personnel in line with its legislative requirements and standards of best practice. In accordance with this commitment the SFPA continues to work with all personnel to implement a proactive health, safety and welfare management programme across all SFPA locations. Widespread organisational ownership of this programme is recognised as key to achieving this goal particularly in light of constantly changing working environments, work places and work practices. In order to achieve this continuous evaluation of all procedures, processes and systems is undertaken through regular scheduled Safety Committee meetings. SFPA Health and Safety outcomes 2012 In 2012 we continued our progress towards this overall goal by securing a number of objectives as follows; 1. Health and Safety Training: a. Training for SFPA Safety Reps b. Training for SFPA Fire Wardens c. Occupational Driver Training d. Training to develop in-house competence in delivering DSE / VDU and Pregnant Employee Risk Assessments e. Conflict Resolution and Confrontation Avoidance Training f. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Training for SPOs g. Critical Incident and Stress Management Training 2. Safety Statement reviews: a. Ongoing review of the SFPA Safety Statement with 1 amendment issued b. New SFPA Accident and Incident / Near Miss Report Forms c. Revised Risk Assessments for all SFPA locations d. Revised Risk Assessments for all SFPA Tasks 3. New safety arrangements implemented: a. Development and introduction of an SOP for the SFPAs Mobile Weighbridge b. Development and introduction of an SOP for SFPA RIBs 4. Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment (PPCE): a. Introduction of new SFPA PPCE procurement procedures. b. Introduction of new Specifications for some items of SFPA PPCE c. Introduction of new PPCE items d. Introduction of new SFPA procedures for the annual maintenance and certification of SFPA issue Lifejackets We work in a relatively hazardous environment and although our ultimate goal must be to achieve an accident / incident free year this environment is going to make the achievement of this goal that much harder. In 2012 there were a total of 19 workplace incidents. As three of these resulting in staff taking time off work, they were reported to the HSA in accordance with procedures. 48

49 Overview of Energy Usage in 2012 SFPA Overview of Energy Usage in 2012 Figure 45: SFPA Fuel Consumption 2012 (kwh) The Sea Fisheries Protection Authority consumed a total of 1,627,856 kwh of energy in 2012, as illustrated in Figure 44. At 49% Road diesel and petrol accounted for almost half of all energy usage in Heating oil and kerosene for the 6 Port Offices and Clonakilty head office accounted for a further 17%, with electricity usage making up 21%. The 13% attributed to the use of jet fuel reflects the considerable level of European and international meetings and working groups attended by SFPA. Actions Undertaken in 2012 In 2011 the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority continued to focus on efficient energy usage. Video conferencing and shared transport were also availed of as much as possible. Actions Planned for 2013 In 2013, the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority intends to further improve our energy performance where possible and energy efficiency will be assessed as part of significant purchases. SFPA will continue to promote efficient energy usage across the organisation. Should it be economically viable, switching to alternative energy providers who supply electricity from renewable energy sources will be also considered. 49