1 / 23

Working Group Managing on Effects

Working Group Managing on Effects. Objective. “To inventarise possibilities to develop methods for managing on effects”. WG Members. Miroslava Dundelova Czech Republic Raymond Ellard Ireland (Chair) Marijn Colijn Netherlands Sarita Stensrud Norway Aud Nergaard Norway. FLEP.

susan
Télécharger la présentation

Working Group Managing on Effects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group Managing on Effects

  2. Objective • “To inventarise possibilities to develop methods for managing on effects”

  3. WG Members • Miroslava Dundelova Czech Republic • Raymond Ellard Ireland (Chair) • Marijn Colijn Netherlands • Sarita Stensrud Norway • Aud Nergaard Norway

  4. FLEP • Discussions and Activities • Microbiology • Biotechnology • Chemistry • Toxicology • Surveillance and Monitoring • Food Law

  5. Seldom Discuss Enforcement

  6. “Chicken” Fillets??? New Variety of Chicken

  7. Irish people love law enforcers!

  8. Social needs / regulation from E.U. (Governmental) policy Other Measures. Regulation by Law Enforcement Justification Other Effect of enforcement Effect of (governmental) policy

  9. Food Safety Strategies • Food quality assurance schemes • Food Hygiene Award schemes • Restaurant hygiene rating schemes • Training programmes for the food industry • Campaigns aimed at empowering consumers • Supply chain control • Self regulation by the food industry • Guidance notes • Codes of Practice

  10. OECD • `…Yet implementation – consisting of strategies such as education, assistance, persuasion, promotion, economic incentives, monitoring enforcement and sanctions – is often a very weak phase in the regulatory process in OECD countries, which tend to rely too much on ineffective punitive threats and too little on other kinds of incentive”

  11. NetherlandsMeasuring Compliance • Measuring compliance of rules on preparing food • gain insight into motives for non compliance • gain insight in effectiveness of law enforcement • develop strategy to improve law enforcement • involved 592 cafeterias selected from >8000

  12. Expert Estimate of Compliance • Ignorant Compliers • Spontaneous Compliers • Conscious Compliers • Deliberate Breakers • Ignorant Breakers

  13. Dimensions for ComplianceTable of 11 Spontaneous Compliance Sanction Dimensions Control Dimensions Knowledge of the rules Sanction Probability Control Probability Cost Benefit Sanction severity Detection Probability Level of Acceptance Quality of the rules Selectivity Loyalty of the target group Informal Control No or minimal Influence Indirect Influence Direct Influence

  14. Impartial and free from conflict of interest Ensure effectiveness and appropriateness of controls Access to laboratories and qualified & experienced staff Facilities and equipment Legal powers Contingency plans Prepared to operate contingency plans Operational Criteria

  15. Target Groups • Closed target groups – all potential offenders are known • Semi–open target groups – majority of potential offenders are known • Open target groups – any persons can be a potential offender • How would the target group act without informal control? • Does food control agencies measure compliance/non compliance? • If people do not comply, what are the risks?

  16. Enforcement Policies • Is there an enforcement policy within the food control services in the MS? • Is it prescriptive? Does it use prosecution or fines? • In defined circumstances? • Is the choice of when and where to enforce left to enforcement agencies or dictated by the policy makers? • What are the best or most appropriate instruments for enforcement? • What are the appropriate penalties?

  17. Other Issues • An Acceptable Level of Compliance?

  18. Examples of Enforcement • Norway • Czech Republic

  19. What’s Happening? • Spain EN45004 • Switzerland EN45004 • Ireland ISO9001:2000 • UK ISO9000 :1994 • Czech Republic ISO9001:2000 ? • BIPs – ISO9000

  20. Which Direction?

  21. Recommendations • Members begin to share experiences on the organisation of food control programmes, specifically with the aim of ensuring legal compliance. • Members participate in the working group • The Forum provides the working group with some guidance on future activities e.g., • Develop a document with some examples from several Member States. • Make an inventory of the ways Member States make their Annual plans, combined with the methods and instruments they use. • Set up a pilot project with FLEP Members as an information and experience exchange using workshops

More Related