Analysis of Submissions: Draft Animal Products (Regulated Control Scheme - Handling of Animal Material and Animal Products at Point of Export) Notice 2009

No.

Clause

Submission comment¹

NZFSA Response

1

General comments

Unlike other RCSs it is not clear as to which aspects the Operator MUST document operating procedures for. To assist in clarity for Operators and Verifiers it would be useful to specify this. The current document only specifies documented procedures are required for cleaning and vermin control programmes (as applicable).

A clause that outlines the documented system requirements has been added. Additional guidance will be provided in an accompanying guidance document.

2

General comments

12 – 22 (3) (b) inclusive - ; Registration clauses imply a “license” will be issued that is mandatory for Ports / Terminals to obtain in order to export” OMAR regulated products. The document is unclear on how the NZFSA will deal with third party operators and what the Ports / Terminal responsibility is with regard to such (third party) operators who handle OMAR product within the Port / Terminal confines.

Further discussion on third parties will continue with affected wharf operators after 1 November.

6

General comments

I assume the costs of creating manuals, changing processes, maintaining audit trails and Audits falls to ports companies. This is an additional cost to the industry that does not currently exist. As Port companies are contracted to shipping lines there is no ability for cost recovery from the exporter. Inevitably this cost will be spread over all exporters (not just food exporters).

NZFSA only expected animal product exporters to indirectly meet costs associated with this RCS. However, NZFSA cannot mandate the way in which a business recovers its costs.

3

General verification comments

Can you please explain what audit requirements apply under the RCS?

The verification requirements are stipulated in Part 9 for the RCS notice. Part 9 refers to the export verification notice. The verification principles and methods already established under the Act apply to verification of wharves under the RCS.

3

General verification comments

We seek confirmation that [recognised verifying agencies] will be acceptable for monitoring of RCSs.

Correct, recognised verification agencies will be acceptable for carrying out verification at wharves, provided they have the appropriate recognition.

4

2

Commencing on the 1 November 2009 hardly seems time for the NZFSA to consider any submissions. Is this document already set in stone or is serious consideration going to be given to submissions?

All submissions were considered prior to issuing the final notice.

This tight timeframe was related to the expiry of an exemption in the Animal Products (Exemptions and Inclusions) Order 2000. Without the RCS in place when the exemption expired, certain storage operators would have no option but to operate under an RMP.

The affected storage operators are those operators storing animal products for export that require official assurances at any premises or structure in or from which passengers or goods may be taken on board or landed from vessels.

3

7

…is unnecessarily prescriptive in requiring “sealed tarmac” when other forms of sealing are equally acceptable.

Agree. The wording of the clause has been changed to “sealed ground surface”.

6

7

Part 2- 7.3 Why is there a need for a sealed surface? The goods are in a sealed container so the operating surface is irrelevant.

This requirement does not apply to cargo in secured containers; this is explicitly stated in the sub-clause.

5

8

(1) and (2) sub-clause (2) requires operators of wharf facilities to document cleaning and vermin control programmes as applicable for the purpose of meeting the requirement of sub-clause (1). The requirement for a documented vermin control programme at a wharf facility is excessive. Sub-clause (1) individually is appropriate to manage the associated risk. We suggest removal of the requirement for a documented vermin control programme.

NZFSA believes the clause is sufficiently outcome based, as it requires cleaning and vermin programmes “as applicable for the purposes of meeting sub-clause (1)”. For example a vermin control programme for holding cargo in sealed containers won’t be the same as for a dry store.

6

8

Part 3 – 8.1 Why is the state of the wharf a concern. As above the goods are in a sealed container. There is no cleaning program in place as per 8.3.

The notice requires cleaning and maintenance “appropriate to the degree of exposure”.

4

10

(6) & (7) refers only to times of not loading or unloading, not specifically loading or unloading animal products.

“animal products and animal materials” has been added to the clause

4

10

Transport RCS mentions the need to contact the verifier about damage. However this is not required in Part 4 Handling requirements - 10 Handling at wharf facilities (8) in the Draft Animal Products (Regulated Control Scheme - Handling of Animal Material and Animal Products at Point of Export) Notice 2009. Why is this important for transporters only? Damaged product which is potentially going to be exported should either be the concern of the verifier or not; not be dependent on at what point in the export chain it is damaged and/or noticed.

Will add to sub-clause 8 a requirement to contact the verifier in cases of damaged packaging that leads to exposure of product.

2

10

3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (e) and the level of detail required for record / auditing purpose. Dependent on the level required the data will then require additional reconciliation processes imposing further cost into exporting OMAR product.

Sub-paragraph (e) will be changed to require vessel and voyage number rather than destination.

2

10

4 - suggests an additional layer of data and / or documents required for audit purposes and product safety that will require further reconciliation and / or validation.

Sub-clause (4) will be amended to improve clarity that meeting this sub-clause is one way of meeting the requirements in sub-clause (3) but it is not compulsory. Sub-clause (4) enables linkage / use of existing records.

6

10

Part 4 – We are not currently supplied with the details of the product or the source, destination etc. This will have major data sourcing and storage costs attached.

NZFSA requires a certain amount of information about animal products be known by the businesses handling those products.

2

10

9 – Document is unclear, however dependent on separation requirements further additional cost may be imposed due to inefficient yard utilisation and possible re-handling of cargo to gain required separation.

This is a basic principle of maintaining fitness for purpose. Where there is sufficient protection (e.g. shipping container) of product then additional separation won’t be required.

2

11

11(2) and 11 (3) - document implies a responsibility for Port operators to check for cargo detail / status that it has nil ability to control and / or observe.

Agreed. Has been deleted.

2

11

11 (5) – implies an unspecified number of monitors be applied to OMAR units to eliminate any possibility of reefer malfunction and therefore risk of cargo damage. This passes an unacceptable and unjustifiable level of liability to the Port and Terminal operators. Monitoring frequencies (usually a minimum) also form part of current contractual arrangements with the line, additional liability management and cargo monitoring over and above contracted requirements will require further cost recovery on behalf of Ports and Terminals.

The sub-clause will remain as worded. Referencing contractual monitoring agreements (and maintaining records of having carried them out) may satisfy the requirements of this clause.

2

16

(1)(c) This clause states that operators must supply a verifiers report confirming that the ‘operator’s document system’ is in place and is sufficient to meet the requirements of the RCS.

However, the RCS doesn’t specify what operators of wharf facilities are required to document. If a documented system is required, then this and the requirements that pertain to it need to be explicit in the RCS so that it is clear and transparent.

Part 9 has been amended to provide further information on documented systems.

5

17

(1) The requirement for operators of wharf facilities to renew their registration (and pay the associated fee) every two years is excessive. The requirement to provide a verification report confirming that the ‘operators document system’ is in place and is sufficient to meet the requirements of the RCS, for a renewal of registration is also excessive.

Clause 26 provides for verification which ensures operators of wharf facilities will be verified twice per year (6 monthly basis). This provides ample opportunity to ensure the operator of the wharf facility is meeting the requirements of the RCS and that their details are kept current on the Register. There is no need for NZFSA to require a 2 yearly renewal of registration.

The renewal fee requirement has been removed.

2

26

26 (4); does not provide for health and safety requirement within the Ports / Terminal operating areas, nor any regulatory requirements as a Customs Controlled area relative to “freedom of access” for NZFSA audit purposes.

The notice does not need to specify compliance with other legislation currently in operation. The need to comply with those requirements is not superseded by anything in this Notice. The guidance document NZFSA intends to publish can be used to provide further information on compliance with other requirements such as health and safety regulations.