On 6 October 2015 was held the second session of Working Group III Food Safety, Veterinary, Plant Protection, Agriculture and Rural Development Chapter 11 & 12). The topic of this session was “Challenges in adoption and implementation of food safety and quality standards by NFA (National Food Agency) and food business operators”.

During his introductory speech, Mr. Gledis Gjipali Executive Director of European Movement in Albania, thanked the participants especially Mr. Bohuslavmr Harvilak, expert from Agency of Food and Veterinary in Slovakia.

Mr. Afrim Bakaj, General Director of National Food Agency, stated that NFA as an authority created to have in regard refinement, storage and distribution of food, is obliged to guarantee food safety by enforcing the law. In this direction the work is going on and an example of it is the duplication of food operators during 2014 which has adopted the ASAP system. Through ASAP, there is also a plan of providing the methodology for the risk level.
Based on the inspection and by implementing the administrative measures, according Mr. Bakaj, there are more positive impacts, even though a lot of problems are noticed. The main one is the lack of infrastructure needed to realize the inspection: for example even though they are quit wide in use, there is lack of fridges in our borders. To guarantee food safety the control must be guaranteed as well. The reformation of food system and veterinary system is necessary to make this control efficient. Another issue that continues being a concern is the overlap of competencies between different institutions. The mentioned reform would bring a better distribution of human resources which are spread in central and local government without a unified structure. An unified human resource structure would also help in health protection.

The speech was followed by Mr. Florian Xhafa, Expert of EMA, who stated that actually there are some topic for discussion regarding the cooperation between private operators and NFA. While focusing on the obligations of Albania in the integration path, Mr. Xhafa mentioned the Stabilization Association Agreement as a duty of Albania: especially to harmonize legislation by focusing on article 70 of SAA which provides the free movement of goods and at the same time guarantees their quality. According Mr. Xhafa, is always the manufacturer responsibility for this. It is not institutions responsibility, even though it is repeatedly claimed that is the state institution responsible for food quality. To realize it function, the competent authority should always take into consideration three important institutions:
1. Risk analysis.
Through this analysis a scientific assessment is needed. In Albania actually operates the Scientific Committee and scientific panels. Thus structurally risk assessment is feasible in our country.

2. Assessment based on risk
Through the assessment based on risk, human resources are provided and allocated.

3. Risk management
Risk management is the main function that NFA has to have. Separation or institutional fragmentation that exists in Albania makes difficult the operation of this principle.
Theoretically the law provides the responsibility, but the necessary structures for putting into practice this responsibility are missing. According Mr. Xhafa the connective element between business operators and NFA is traceability: the key factor of control and origin identity of the product. Is the cooperation and interaction between food operators what guarantees food safety. The lack of physical infrastructure or the lack of human resources is a problem but we have to take into consideration that even the EU countries were not in the optimal conditions to implement the legislation from the moment of adoption. During the discussion in the first table one of the conclusions was that the cooperation between private structures is a very good idea to pass the moment where the institutions have to take this responsibility.

Mr. Bohuslavmr Harvilak, expert in food safety and Director of Legal Department for Food Safety in Slovakia, shared the experience of his country as EU member state regarding this framework. Before entrance, there were two institutions that were responsible for food safety. Today the whole food chain control is available. There is a mandatory rule for the EU countries according to which institutions with clear and accurate competences that do not overlap, must be established. Food controls are realized mainly by risk analysis. There are 79 administrative units in Slovakia and 40 directories that direct control process: thus it is not necessary to have equal allocation but to focus where is necessary. Also based on control principle in areas where there aren’t many farmers or farms, obvious differences of control forms exist: in the capital city there are more inspectors that control the food, meanwhile in suburb areas there are more animal inspectors where even the animal feed is controlled. As EU member state, another obligation set from EU Directives is the existence of laboratory instruments. In Slovakia public state laboratories are mostly used but there are also private laboratories used only by private businesses. So firstly there is a healthy legal basis for the continuity of food safety. There are two important legal acts from which all the control and safety system is built: law on Food Safety and law on Veterinary. In Slovakia, there is always been a healthy cooperation between Ministry of Health and Agriculture: there is a range of food products which are controlled by Health Authority. According Mr. Harvilak there is always the possibility to make effective controls: for instance innovative solutions. Close cooperation between food business operators and other institutions is always necessary as well as the training of operators and businesses that work with the food. Even though it is not an easy process, it is necessary because it has to take into consideration the problems of businesses as well. In Slovakia, representatives of Food Safety NGOs are part of groups which are established for law adoption in this framework.