1. Overview report of a series of FVO fact- finding missions and audits carried out in 2012 and 2013 in order to evaluate the systems put in place to give effect to article 8(3) of regulation (EC) no 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council MANCP Network meeting 14th and 15th May 2014, Grange

2. Context 2 fact-finding missions in 2012 (AT and FR) 5 audits in 2013 (BE, BG, CZ, DK, IE) Draft overview report – under consultation Overview report aims to identify issues of interest to the MS and the Commission services arising from the series in relation to implementation of the above requirement

3. Objective and Scope Evaluation of the systems put in place in those MS to implement article 8(3) of regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules

4. Why look at this? examine the operation of selected "horizontal" control system elements across the EU MS identify good practice as well as difficulties encountered in their implementation the "verification" requirement features as an issue in almost all FVO reports, across all MS, although, more often than not, in terms of "verification of compliance with planned arrangements" rather than "verification of effectiveness of official controls"

5. Legal References – Article 8(3) Competent authorities shall have procedures in place: (a) to verify the effectiveness of official controls that they carry out; and (b) to ensure that corrective action is taken when needed and that the documentation referred to in paragraph [8](1) is updated as appropriate.

6. Legal References – Article 4 2. The competent authorities shall ensure: (a) the effectiveness and appropriateness of official controls on live animals, feed and food at all stages of production, processing and distribution, and on the use of feed. …….. 4. Competent authorities shall ensure the impartiality, quality and consistency of official controls at all levels. The criteria listed in paragraph 2 must be fully respected by every authority on which the competence to carry out official controls is conferred.

7. Challenges Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 does not include any definition of effectiveness. For the purposes of its consideration of the topic of auditing the effectiveness of official controls, the sub-group of the Member States network on NAS has adopted the following definition: Effectiveness: is the extent to which official controls produce an (intended) effect and/or achieve an objective. In this particular context the objectives are those of Regulation 882/2004. Effectiveness is not to be confused with efficiency, which is normally used when we want to refer to input-output ratio i.e. cost and/or resources required to produce an output.

8. Challenges For the purposes of this series, it was necessary to distinguish between verification of compliance with planned arrangements for official controls and verification of the effectiveness of those controls.

9. Challenges Article 8(3)(a) does not prescribe how effectiveness of official controls should be verified: no defined list or standard covering all possible/permitted procedures for verification of the effectiveness of official controls. Procedures to verify the effectiveness of controls may be applied at the level of individual controls, at the level of the evaluation of a series of official controls or at the level of evaluation of a system of official controls in one or more sectors.

10. Thus verification of effectiveness of official controls can take place at local, regional and/or central level and such verification may occur in real time, e.g. on-the-spot evaluations, or a posteriori, through the evaluation of control or other data.

11. Audit Audit of official control systems (Article 4(6)) and verification of the effectiveness of official controls (Article 8(3)(a)) are distinct and separate requirements of Regulation 882/2004: Article 4(6) audits may contribute to the verification of effectiveness of official controls required by Article 8(3)(a) but, alone, are generally not sufficient for that purpose The degree to which effectiveness of official controls is taken into account by NAS varies between MSs and CAs

12. Main Issues Arising from Series All MSs included in the series had put in place certain measures which could give an indication of the effectiveness of official controls and demonstrated that they could take corrective actions, through amendment of documented procedures, or by other means, such as training staff or modifying enforcement policies or legislation, when issues undermining the effectiveness of official controls were identified.

13. Main Issues Arising from Series variation (between MS and between different CAs) in degree of formalisation and nature/scope of verification activities. variation did not necessarily reflect failure to comply with the requirements of Article 8(3) but often due to differing factors (e.g. size of the CA and the nature of controls undertaken (highly prescriptive controls vs. controls where risk-based selection were important and controls were less prescriptive), which determined which measures were the most appropriate to take in order to comply with Art. 8(3)

14. Main Issues Arising from Series defining and measuring effectiveness of official controls poses a significant challenge on-going and active discussion use of external reviews commitment to continuous improvement

15. Main Issues Arising from Series actions and procedures which contributed to verifying effectiveness of official controls were not always identified explicitly as such, but were more often embedded in other activities, such as development of national plans for official controls or day-to-day line-management tasks. contribution of Quality Management Systems PDCA cycle

17. Verifying the effectiveness of control programmes All MS had processes in place to take account of the results of previous official controls, as well as feedback from the field on implementation of those programmes and results of audits and internal supervision checks, when developing subsequent programmes Use of IT tools Impact and performance indicators Feedback

18. Verifying the effectiveness of individual controls Most CAs had procedures in place requiring supervision by line managers/supervisors or nominated senior inspectors of reports, and/or data entered into databases, of official controls. Some supervisions of specific aspects (e.g. follow-up) Challenges (acceptance and resources)