2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
General survey results:
7.8. Training of staff
f. 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.
g. What are the resources available for training at national level?
See text
h. 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.
i. 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.
j. 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.
3.10 Organisational issues
3.10.1 Distribution of responsibilities
This section summarises the findings on the evaluation of the CPHR performance to date,
taking into consideration EQ 11, 12 (Area G) of the ToR.
The extent to which the distribution of responsibilities extends to the private sector and
business operators (in terms of responsibility and cost sharing) also relates to the availability
of incentives (or existence of disincentives) and the cost-benefit balance of the CPHR and the
solidarity regime (EQ 22i (area J)), which are analysed further in section 3.11.
EQ11. How is the Single Authority / Responsible Official Body concept implemented by
MS and does it need to be improved (if so, how)?
EQ12. What are the views on the appropriate sharing of responsibilities between national
authorities and private sector in the implementation38 of the CPHR?
According to Art. 1(4) of Directive 2000/29/EC, MS have to establish or designate a single
authority, which shall be responsible, at least, for the coordination and contact in relation to
plant health issues dealt within the Directive, in order to ensure a close, rapid, immediate and
effective cooperation between themselves and the Commission. It is further stipulated that the
official plant protection organisation set up under the IPPC shall preferably be designated for
this purpose. The single authority may be authorised to assign or delegate tasks of
coordination or contact, insofar as they relate to distinct plant health matters covered by the
Directive, to another service through comitology procedure. Art. 2.1(g) of the Directive,
allows the responsible official bodies of MS to delegate the tasks established in the Directive -
FCEC 178