2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) MS Budget (various years) Latvia SPPS. The funds available for training for year 2006, 2007 and 2008 were about 3400 LVL per year, but there was considerable decrease of the funding for training in year 2009 - only 500 LVL. / Food and Veterinary Service -2006-10000 LVL; 2007- 10400 LVL;2008-9412 LVL (276 LVL for one inspector). Lithuania 2-3 training courses are organised annually and about 80 inspectors are trained. Malta No specific funds are allocated for training at national level. Poland about 130 000 € and in addition EU funds -162 862 € Portugal The inspectors training is provided by the technicians of the DGADR, AFN and INRB Romania Scarce resources Slovakia 90 000 €, what is approx. 8,5 % of the Plant Protection Department's budget Slovenia It is difficult to say, because there is no special budget line for this and many different organisations of NPPO have separated budgets. Fields of training are not only plant health, but also information system, public administration, general law on inspection and administrative procedures, quality assurance and general courses on work or management. Into calculation it could be included: / - biannual national conference on plant health (2-3 days), / - an annual seminar of the NPPO (2 days), / - at least 3 inspection service 1-day seminars per year / - 3-days phytosanitary qualification course for plant health checks with an exam at the beginning of career and update training every 3 years / - 2-3 workshops on specific harmful organisms / Training above are organised at national level. NPPO staff participate also at international trainings of EPPO or BTSF. Spain 80,300 € (2008 and 2009) Sweden Ca 200 000 SEK per year (roughly 3 days per year and inspector) Source: General survey The general survey has covered the views of both MS CAs and stakeholders on the availability of training, with results summarised below. General survey results: 7.8. Training of staff a. Is sufficient training provided to your plant health inspectors? The majority of MS CAs (16 out of 25) consider that the training is sufficient. Stakeholders do not know (13 out of 21), 5 responded that training is not sufficient. b. What are the resources available for training at national level? See table above. c. Have you benefitted from EC-funded training (Better Training for Safer Food Programme (BTSF))? All the MS (24 out of 24) responding to the survey have benefited from BTSF training. d. Does the Better Training for Safer Food Programme fulfil the needs for harmonised training of inspectors? The majority of MS CAs (20 out of 25) believes that the BTSF fulfil the needs for harmonised training for inspectors. e. Should training for plant health diagnosticians be included in the Better Training for Safer Food Programme (as is the case for animal health)? The majority of MS CAs (20 out of 24, 2 do not know) consider training for PH diagnosticians should be included in the BTSF. The availability of training and the differences between MS in training of inspectors were also noted in the context of import inspections (section 3.4), where variability among MS was highlighted as a limit to the functioning of the system of imports; this was linked to the lack of uniformity and harmonization among inspection practices among MS. MS CAs noted, with reference to several questions, that one of the limitations of the current system is the reduced FCEC 176
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) availability for training and, more importantly, the lack of communication and cooperation among inspectors of different MS. In the view of the majority of MS CAs training at national and EU level needs to be continued and strengthened. Some EU-funded training in the field of plant health to EU NPPO services was provided in 2008 and 2009 within the BTSF (Better Training for Safer Food) program. The respondents to the general survey revealed the overall degree of satisfaction with the training provided under BTSF and pointed to the need to strengthen and continue this training, as well as some potential areas for improvement: The training needs more focus on practical inspection performance and systematic, including sampling. In particular, training on inspections should be provided by FVO or COPHs services (and the logistics aspect left to consultants); It is remarked that the regulatory/official position of DG SANCO should be also clarified during the training sessions; Language is a barrier to the participation and the exchange of knowledge in the view of several MS CAs and it is responsible for low participation of inspectors from some countries. It is therefore suggested that the ‗training the trainers‘ approach of BTSF is strengthened in this case, for example by follow up to ensure training dissemination; Include diagnostics in the BTSF training programme. One of the positive results of the training was indeed the fact of promoting exchange of experience between inspectors of EU countries. However, for the regime to be efficient it is strongly stressed from many parts that more cooperation and communication between inspectors is needed. For example, some MS stressed the fact that inspectors are very concerned that there is no official route for MS inspectorates to talk to each other. Conclusions The evaluation highlighted the reduced availability of training and significant variability among MS in the level and quality of resources for training activities. Coupled with the lack of communication and cooperation among inspectors of different MS, this concurs to the limited harmonisation of inspection practices and the variability in the effectiveness of import inspections among MS. Some EU-funded training in the field of plant health to EU NPPO services was provided in 2008 and 2009 under the BTSF (Better Training for Safer Food) program. It is recommended that this training is strengthened and continued, and that it is provided both for inspectors and diagnosticians (section Error! Reference source not found.). FCEC 177
Page 1 and 2:
I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 161 and 162: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 209: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 241 and 242: Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?