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)
9 out of 24 MS CAs and 4 out of 9 stakeholders suggest the improved balance of cost-sharing between public
authorities and private operators (9 MS CAs and 4 stakeholders do not know)
9 out of 25 MS CAs and 0 stakeholder suggest the introduction of cost sharing scheme to improve balance
between private operators (11 MS CAs and 6 stakeholders do not know)
15 out of 25 MS CAs and 1 out of 9 stakeholders suggest additional synergies with obligations imposed under
other EU legislation (9 MS CAs and 6 stakeholders do not know)
In their comments, respondents indicate the following opportunities:
Act faster to revoke quarantine status of HOs which no longer meet this definition (for
example, because they are well spread);
Remove from the scope of import inspections very low risk produce;
Provide PZ status for those MS for whom an HO is a true quarantine pest;
Further develop risk-targeted import inspections ;
Authorize reduced frequency of official inspection at the place of production that put in
place an internal risk management system (self control programme);
Delegate inspections of lower risk materials where no conflict of interest arises;
Delegate laboratory tasks, because of the high investments, expertise etc.;
Enhance responsibility of private operators for plant health, thus leading to a better and
cheaper utilization of tools of the operators;
Improve/extend the use of solidarity funding, thus leading to higher incentive for
producers to implement plant health measures ;
Introduce product liability so that traders/producers could be made responsible in case of
trading plant material with pests ;
Adapt at EU level the approach aiming at implementing a co-financing between the
State and the private operators to compensate private operators in case of outbreak ;
Encourage the implementation of private funds/mutual funds;
Improve the coordination with the current S&PM Marketing Directives and customs and
upcoming EU strategy on Invasive Alien Species (IAS).
More generally, the potential savings in terms of eradication and control costs, from
investment on measures that promote better risk targeting and more prevention and early
response, were noted by interviewees during the consultation and field visits. These
anticipated benefits are backed up by some literature that exists on the subject. For example,
research carried out on rationalising the costs of import inspection capacity in the NL
concluded that each additional € of inspection capacity (i.e. more investment in prevention)
decreases the expected costs of pest introduction by €18-49 (depending on the initial
inspection capacity); ceteris paribus, if greater inspection effort is allocated to high risk
pathways (i.e. better targeting of risks), the inspection yields a greater reduction in the
expected costs of pest introduction 228 . Further research by the same authors, concluded that a
budget increase that enables 42% more inspection can reduce total societal costs by 81%
compared to a smaller, constrained budget that ignores risk differentials 229 . The potential
228 A model of optimal import phytosanitary inspection under capacity constraint. Surkov et al, Wageningen
University, The Netherlands. June 2007.
229 The optimal amount and allocation of sampling effort for plant health inspection. Surkov et al, Wageningen
University, The Netherlands. April 2008.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 242