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) 7.3. Availability of incentives for the effective implementation of the CPHR a) Are there currently incentives other than legal requirements for private operators in the production and trade chain to contribute to the effective implementation of the CPHR? The majority of MS CAs (17 out of 25) believe that currently there are not incentives other then legal requirements for private operators. Stakeholders believe there are (9 out of 23, 8 do not know). b) Are there currently incentives other than legal requirements for the timely reporting of outbreaks? The majority of MS CAs believe that there are no incentives, either for CAs (21 out of 25) nor for private operators (22 out of 25). The majority of stakeholders have the same view (as regarding private operators (14 out of 23, 6 do not know). c) Are there currently incentives other than legal requirements for the effective implementation of control measures? The majority of MS CAs believe that there are no incentives, either for CAs (21 out of 25) nor for private operators (19 out of 25). A number of stakeholders have the same view (as regarding private operators (10 out of 23, 7 do not know). d) Is there liability in the case of failure to fulfil the requirements of the Directive? The majority of the MS CAs believe there is liability for CAs (14 out of 25, 2 do not know) and for private operators (16 out 24, 4 do not know). A number of stakeholders do not know (10 out of 23), 8 believe there is. Has, during the last 15 years, any legal action been taken in your country for failure to fulfil the requirements of the Directive? In the past there have been cases of legal action, mostly of CAs against private operators (14 out of 25, 2 do not know) and in some cases of private operators against CAs (6 out 25). Stakeholders are largely not aware of legal actions of stakeholders against CAs (16 do not know out of 22, 4 report that there have been) of legal actions of CAs against private operators (15 do not know out of 21, 4 report that there have been). Table 3-19: Implementation of „Single Authority‟ and „Responsible Official Body‟ concepts in the MS Country NPPO is the single Authority (art. 1(4) ) NPPO is the responsible Official Body (art. 2.1(g)) Delegation of Tasks Tasks delegated to official bodies/legal persons (see note) Yes No Yes No Yes No a b c d e f g h i Austria 192 Belgium 193 Bulgaria Czech Republic Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland - - - - - France * * * Germany 194 195 192 Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft 193 SPF-FOD Federal Public Service of Public Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment Art. 3 of Royal Decree dd.10/08/2005 194 The German NPPO consists of the responsible official bodies of the Federal States and the phytosanitary units of JKI and BMELV (Ministry). 195 There are responsible official bodies in each of the devolved territories of the UK, along with the forestry commission, with Fera being the NPPO and a responsible official body (for England) in its own right. FCEC 180
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Country NPPO is the single Authority (art. 1(4) ) NPPO is the responsible Official Body (art. 2.1(g)) Delegation of Tasks Tasks delegated to official bodies/legal persons (see note) Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia 196 Spain Sweden * The Netherlands UK - - Total 23 2 25 1 13 12 2 10 10 3 3 3 2 5 2 Note: Delegated to public body, if not specified private (*) Delegation of tasks: a. Coordination of official checks, controls and inspections; b. Conducting official checks, controls and inspections; c. Conducting official laboratory analyses; d. Issuing phytosanitary certificates; e. Carrying out pest risk assessments; f. Imposing measures; g. Drawing up contingency plans; h Drawing up and implementing surveillance and monitoring programmes; i. Dealing with international organisations Source: General survey results (Q 7.1.a, 7.1.b, 7.2.a) All MS except one consider that the legal framework for defining the position of the Single Authority and the Responsible Official Bodies is adequate to fulfil their duties. Only one MS (DE) disagrees, considering that the legal framework defining the position of the single and central authority (Art. 1(4) of the Directive) is not established in a clear and consistent manner. According to this MS, in some implementing regulations, functions of this authority are clearly defined; in similar situations in other implementing Regulations this is not the case. Also the functions of this authority within the relevant MS are not clear enough in regard to coordination (e.g. national guidelines, national reference functions). In 13 MS, duties and tasks have been assigned or delegated to other bodies or legal persons under the authority and supervision of the responsible official bodies. Such delegation mainly concerns the conducting of official checks, control and inspections and the conducting of official laboratory analysis and is generally done to public bodies. Although the majority of MS CAs consider that the public resources devoted in their country to the duties and tasks derived from the CPHR is not sufficient, most of them consider that there is no need or opportunity for further delegation of tasks to other bodies or legal persons. 196 NPPO in Slovenia is composed of several competent bodies of which the Phytosanitary Administration of the Republic Slovenia is the Single Authority. FCEC 181
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:
Page 163 and 164: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 213: 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 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?