Food control performance metrics Evidencing the effectiveness of enforcement activities Eoghan Daly, UK Policy and technical advisor (food)

Revisions to 882/2004 underway Revisions may include: -Renewed focus on a risk based approach. -Scope to use 3 rd party assurance schemes to inform prioritisation. -Mandatory charging for controls.

Potential for increased scrutiny of control effectiveness CA MANCPs typically include specific aims and objectives. Aims and objectives generally relate to outcomes and impacts. -E.g. ensuring food is safe to consume, ensuring consistent and co-ordinated enforcement of controls. But, performance metrics often relate to inputs, activities and outputs.

Potential for increased scrutiny of control effectiveness Focusing on counting activities / outputs is insufficient. -E.g. training enforcement staff, number and type of enforcement measure applied. Determining effectiveness requires a focus on outcomes.

Measuring outcomes & impacts are difficult But not impossible -Good examples from NL and DK. -Other MS CAs are exploring options. Requires alignment from aims, to objectives, outputs, activities and impacts. -And institutional cooperation to collect and collate data.

Next steps Harmonisation of select performance metrics would be beneficial. -E.g. Facilitate identification of best practice and knowledge exchange. 882/2004 requirements could provide basis for identifying harmonised metrics

FLEP’s role Interest in a working group to: -Advance understanding of appropriate performance metrics for official control systems. -Explore potential for harmonised performance metrics.

Eoghan Daly,