Good practice for dialogue and communication as strategic principle for policing political manifestations in Europe (GODIAC):field study handbook

This handbook describes the peer review methodology that was applied at the GODIAC project fi eld studies1. The peer review evaluation method as initiated by Otto Adang in the Netherlands and further developed in a European football context (Adang & Brown, 2008) involves experienced police offi cers cooperating with researchers to perform observational fi eld studies to identify good practices and learning points for public order management. The handbook builds on the GODIAC seminars and workshops, for the fi eld study members, which took place in September 2010, January 2012 and January 2013. The handbook has been discussed in the project group and in the steering committee. It is primarily written for the GODIAC fi eld study members as background material for understanding the fi eld study process and for clarifying the different responsibilities that enable active participation in the fi eld study. The handbook has been developed during the project period and incorporates learning points and developments of the peer review method. The handbook aims at promoting the use of fi eld studies for evaluation of policing major events.

What do outside experts bring to a committee? Evidence from the Bank of England

We test whether outside experts have information not available to insiders by usingthe voting record of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. Memberswith more private information should vote more often against conventional wisdom,which we measure as the average belief of market economists about future interest rates. We find evidence that external members indeed have information notavailable to internals, but also use a quasi-natural experiment to show they mayexaggerate their expertise to obtain reappointment. This implies that an optimalcommittee, even outside monetary policy, should potentially include outsiders, butneeds to manage career concerns.

An analysis of the accounting principles applied by the European Farm Accountancy Data Network

In spite of its relative importance in the economy of many countriesand its growing interrelationships with other sectors, agriculture has traditionally been excluded from accounting standards. Nevertheless, to support its Common Agricultural Policy, for years the European Commission has been making an effort to obtain standardized information on the financial performance and condition of farms. Through the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), every year data are gathered from a rotating sample of 60.000 professional farms across all member states. FADN data collection is not structured as an accounting cycle but as an extensive questionnaire. This questionnaire refers to assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and seems to try to obtain a "true and fair view" of the financial performance and condition of the farms it surveys. However, the definitions used in the questionnaire and the way data is aggregated often appear flawed from an accounting perspective. The objective of this paper is to contrast the accounting principles implicit in the FADN questionnaire with generally accepted accounting principles, particularly those found in the IVth Directive of the European Union, on the one hand, and those recently proposed by the International Accounting Standards Committee’s Steering Committeeon Agriculture in its Draft Statement of Principles, on the other hand. There are two reasons why this is useful. First, it allows to make suggestions how the information provided by FADN could be more in accordance with the accepted accounting framework, and become a more valuable tool for policy makers, farmers, and other stakeholders. Second, it helps assessing the suitability of FADN to become the starting point for a European accounting standard on agriculture.

The use of non-animal alternatives in the safety evaluations of cosmetics ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)

In Europe, the safety evaluation of cosmetics is based on the safety evaluation of each individual ingredient. Article 3 of the Cosmetics Regulation specifies that a cosmetic product made available on the market is to be safe for human health when used normally or under reasonably foreseeable conditions. For substances that cause some concern with respect to human health (e.g. colorants, preservatives, UV-filters), safety is evaluated at the Commission level by a scientific committee, presently called the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). According to the Cosmetics Regulations, in the EU, the marketing of cosmetics products and their ingredients that have been tested on animals for most of their human health effects, including acute toxicity, is prohibited. Nevertheless, any study dating from before this prohibition took effect is accepted for the safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The in vitro methods reported in the dossiers summited to the SCCS are here evaluated from the published reports issued by the scientific committee of the Directorate General of Health and Consumers (DG SANCO); responsible for the safety of cosmetics ingredients. The number of studies submitted to the SCCS that do not involve animals is still low and in general the safety of cosmetics ingredients is based on in vivo studies performed before the prohibition.