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) 3.11.4.5 Additional costs not imposed by the CPHR The costs associated with the general surveillance (i.e. the surveillance for HOs other than those covered by the Community emergency measures and Control Directives) and the exports checks have also been analysed. In total, 16 MS CAs (DK, EE, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, ES, SE and UK) have provided data on the costs associated with the general surveillance, and the total cost for these MS comes to €8,378,161 on average per year. Finally, the costs for MS CAs associated with the export checks amounts to €22,698,777 225 on average per year, of which €17,228,953 (75.9%) are charged as fees to private operators. 3.11.5 The fee system Under Article 13d paragraphs 1 and 2, Directive 2000/29/EC imposes the collection of fees to cover the costs of the import checks (compulsory fees) as follows: ―Member States shall ensure the collection of fees (Phytosanitary fee) to cover the costs occasioned by the documentary checks, identity checks and plant health checks provided for in Article 13a(1), which are carried out pursuant to Article 13. The level of the fee shall reflect: (a) the salaries, including social security, of the inspectors involved in the above checks; (b) the office, other facilities, tools and equipment for these inspectors; (c) the sampling for visual inspection or for laboratory testing; (d) laboratory testing; (e) the administrative activities (including operational overheads) required for carrying out the checks concerned effectively, which may include the expenditure required for pre- and in-service training of inspectors. Member States may either set the level of the Phytosanitary fee on the basis of a detailed cost calculation carried out in accordance with paragraph 1, or apply the standard fee as specified in Annex VIIIa‖. Responses from CAs to the cost survey indicate that several MS not only collect fees for the activities foreseen under the above provision, but also collect fees to cover expenditures due to other CPHR obligations, such as for instance the inspection at the place of production. The following analysis distinguishes between the fees charged by MS to cover the costs of the import checks (compulsory) and the fees charged by the MS to cover other types of costs. 225 Only 20 MS CA have responded in the specific cost survey to questions concerning exports checks costs and fees. CY, DE, MT and ES did not provide any information on exports. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 234
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 3.11.5.1 Fees to cover the costs associated with the documentary checks, identity checks and plant health checks The majority of MS (20 out of 25) apply the standard fee of Annex VIII a of Directive 2000/29/EC. 5 MS (AT, DK, FI, NL and SE) use flat rates defined on the basis of detailed cost calculation, as summarized in the following table: MS Fee system (standard fee or cost % of costs recovered through calculation) fees AT Detailed cost calculation 100% BE Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 50% CZ Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 52% CY Standard fee of Annex VIII of Not available Directive 2000/29/EC DE Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC Approximately 35% DK Detailed cost calculation 100% EE Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 42% EL Standard fee of Annex VIII of Not available Directive 2000/29/EC ES Standard fee of Annex VIII of Not available Directive 2000/29/EC FI Detailed cost calculation 100% FR Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 91% HU Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 39% IE Standard fee of Annex VIII of Not applied yet* Directive 2000/29/EC IT Standard fee of Annex VIII of Between 30% and 100% Directive 2000/29/EC according to the region LT Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 34% LV Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 50% MT Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 50%** NL Detailed cost calculation 100% PL Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 63% PT Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 75% RO Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC Not available SE Detailed cost calculation 100% SI Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 72% SK Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC Not available UK Standard fee of Annex VIII of Directive 2000/29/EC 50% Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 235
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:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218: 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 267: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 309 and 310: Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 315 and 316: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 319 and 320:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 321 and 322:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?