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) The majority (16) the MS CAs indicate they collect a fee to cover the costs associated with inspection at the place of production (AT, BE, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SI, SE and UK). The amount of the fee is either fixed (e.g. in AT), or calculated according to the time needed for the inspection (e.g. in BE, NL and UK), or according to the surface (in PL, LV and SE). It can also vary depending on the species of the inspected plants (as in LV, SI and SE), or depending on the region (as in DE, where the unit fee varies between €15 and €100 in IT). The analysis of the results of the cost survey indicates that, when MS apply a fee for inspection at the place of production, the fees collected cover between 30 and 100% of the costs concerned. Although it is not a CPHR obligation, the inspection for the issuance of export certificate is subject to collection of fees in most MS (AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, EL, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE and UK). The percentage of recovery for the competent authorities is usually higher than for the other fees (full cost recovery in 9 MS), and is higher than 100% in two MS. One MS CA mentioned in the cost survey that they are using receipts from export inspection to recover other expenditures due to the CPHR such as, for example, mandatory surveillance. 3.11.5.3 Suggestions to improve the fees system applied under the CPHR in the future The results of the cost survey concerning what should be done in the future to improve the fees system applied under the CPHR indicate the following: Specific cost survey results Q 1.3.f) Suggestions to improve the fee system in the future: 11 out of 25 MS CAs and 2 out of 7 stakeholders consider that the current fees system should be maintained but that the fees should be annually adjusted to correct for inflation (4 MS CAs and 2 stakeholders do not know). 6 out of 25 MS CAs and 4 out of 9 stakeholders consider that standard fees should apply throughout the EU (4 MS CAs do not know). 10 out of 23 MS CAs and 5 out of 9 stakeholders consider that fees based on cost calculation should apply throughout the EU (3 MS CAs and 1 stakeholder do not know). 8 out of 25 MS CAs and 2 out of 8 stakeholders consider that greater subsidiarity or leaving more responsibility to MS (to fix fees at required levels) should apply (5 MS CAs and 1 stakeholder do not know). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 238
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Figure 3-20: Suggestions for the future fee system (put forward by MS CAs) Status quo – maintenance of current fee system but annual adjustment of fee to correct for inflation Full harmonisation (standard fees applied throughout the EU) Full harmonisation (cost calculation applied throughout the EU) Yes No Greater subsidiarity or leaving more responsibility to MS (to fix fees at required levels) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Source: compiled by FCEC based on responses to the specific cost survey Figure 3-21: Suggestions for the future fee system (put forward by stakeholders) Status quo – maintenance of current fee system but annual adjustment of fee to correct for inflation Full harmonisation (standard fees applied throughout the EU) Full harmonisation (cost calculation applied throughout the EU) Yes No Greater subsidiarity or leaving more responsibility to MS (to fix fees at required levels) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Source: compiled by FCEC based on responses to the specific cost survey Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 239
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:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222: 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 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 271: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 309 and 310: Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 315 and 316: 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?