You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items

  • Author or Editor: Giuseppa Ottimofiore x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Florentin Blanc and Giuseppa Ottimofiore

The chapter considers legal and actual accountability of EEAs, looking at the interplay between how mandates are defined, accountability exercised, and which outcomes can be assessed. It analyses if and how formulation of mandates and performance measurement can affect practices, accountability, and results for the public. The hypotheses investigated are: (1) Accountability is meaningful when it reflects regulatory outcomes in terms of public welfare. Mandates and performance indicators should be consistent with the primary goal of EEAs. (2) Accountability is not a mere mechanism, but substantive content in terms of mandate, goals and indicators being assessed. (3) The formulation and measurement of mandates, goals and indicators have effects on EEAs’ performance, operations, methods, use of resources and results. Performance management needs to be linked to accountability, to ensure that EEAs are held accountable for the way they carry out their mandate and not only for the implementation of procedures.

You do not have access to this content

Florentin Blanc and Giuseppa Ottimofiore

Regulatory practice generally refers to stakeholder consultation as part of a ‘better and smarter regulation’. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have a clear understanding of what it is and what its benefits are and how it is integrated with impact assessment (IA). In this chapter, we look at consultation cross-nationally and discuss what has been achieved in the context of IA; comparison is particularly relevant, since countries use different methods and pursue different goals. We provide an overview on consultation approaches and tools. The conclusion offers a summary of what a desirable stakeholders’ consultation system should cover. We argue that, although examples of perfunctory practice are not rare, in some countries or policy sectors consultation has established itself as even more important than IA, meaning that governments consider consultation essential to policy formulation, with or without the IA.

You do not have access to this content

Antonia Corini, Bernd van der Meulen, Floris Kets, Giuseppa Ottimofiore and Florentin Blanc

National competences to enforce EU food law are heavily regulated through the Official Controls Regulation. Information on food safety issues is shared among competent authorities through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). National performance is supervised by Directorate-F of DG SANTE; EU supervision though indirect enforcement by nature may directly affect businesses as is shown in the Bowland case. Also RASFF alerts that are traceable to individual businesses may heavily affect these businesses. The EU holds direct enforcement competences with regard to third countries and in case of emergencies including failing enforcement at Member State level. Due to the interlinkedness of competences, judicial accountability regarding RASFF alerts and Directorate-F supervision is lacking both at national level and at EU level. Also political accountability seems to fall short both at national and at EU level.