(1)

Article 29 (1) of Directive 96/23/EC requires that third countries from which Member States are authorised to import animals and animal products covered by that Directive submit residue monitoring plans providing required guarantees (‘the plans’). The plans should cover at least the groups of residues and substances listed in Annex I to that Directive.

(2)

Commission Decision 2011/163/EU (2) approves the plans submitted by certain third countries concerning specified animals and animal products listed in the Annex to that Decision (‘the list’).

(3)

Albania has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Since that plan does not cover crustaceans, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(4)

Bosnia and Herzegovina has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(5)

The Falkland Islands have submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans and a plan for small ruminants, which only covers ovine animals. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture and limiting the approval to ovine animals for small ruminants should be added to the list.

(6)

The Faroes have submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(7)

Guatemala has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(8)

Iran has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(9)

Kyrgyzstan is currently included in the approval list for honey. That third country has submitted to the Commission a plan for honey that does not provide sufficient guarantees. Therefore, the entry for Kyrgyzstan regarding honey should be deleted from the list.

(10)

Moldova has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans, and a plan for milk. The milk plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list, and an entry for Moldova for milk should be included in the list.

(11)

Montenegro has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans, and a plan for small ruminants, which only covers ovine animals. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture and limiting the approval to ovine animals for small ruminants should be added to the list.

(12)

Morocco has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(13)

Mozambique has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(14)

Namibia has submitted to the Commission a plan for wild game and for small ruminants, which only covers ovine animals. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Namibia for wild game and ovine animals should be included in the list. However, a specification limiting the approval to ovine animals for small ruminants should be added to the list.

(15)

Nicaragua has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(16)

Nigeria has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture which does not cover finfish. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Nigeria for aquaculture, with a specification excluding finfish, should therefore be included in the list.

(17)

New Caledonia has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(18)

Oman has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture which does not cover crustaceans. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Oman for aquaculture, with a specification excluding crustaceans, should therefore be included in the list.

(19)

Taiwan has submitted to the Commission a plan for eggs. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Taiwan for eggs should therefore be included in the list.

(20)

Tanzania has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover finfish. Therefore, a specification excluding finfish from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(21)

Togo has submitted to the Commission a plan for honey. That plan provides sufficient guarantees and should be approved. An entry for Togo for honey should therefore be included in the list.

(22)

Tunisia has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(23)

Ukraine has submitted to the Commission a plan for aquaculture, which does not cover crustaceans. Therefore, a specification excluding crustaceans from the approval for aquaculture should be added to the list.

(24)

While Colombia has not submitted to the Commission a plan for eggs, that country has provided guarantees in respect of eggs and egg products originating either from Member States or from third countries, which are approved to export such products to the Union. An entry for Colombia regarding eggs with the appropriate footnote should therefore be added to the list.

(25)

Decision 2011/163/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

(26)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,