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)
benefits of better risk targeting and prevention in cost rationalisation are noted by a series of
studies in other countries (e.g. US, Canada), and in animal health policies.
In conclusion, the evaluation has highlighted a number of areas where opportunities for cost
reduction exist, including the quicker adaptation of the measures and the provision of
incentives through responsibility sharing and the solidarity funding. More generally,
enhancing prevention and the prioritisation of measures present opportunities for improving
the cost effectiveness of the current system. These aspects have been built into the options
that have been developed for the future (e.g. prevention: section 5.2 on imports and section
5.3 on surveillance intra-EU; incentives: section Error! Reference source not found.).
3.11.7 Distribution of financial risks and review of incentives
The analysis of the distribution of financial risks refers to the question: ‗Who should pay for
what?‘
The analysis of the distribution of financial risks refers to the question: ‗Who should pay for
what?‘. This question is important because, as discussed in section 3.11.1, the extent to which
current mechanisms exist for cost and responsibility sharing and for the provision of the
appropriate incentives at all levels is an important factor that can determine the success or
failure of phytosanitary measures.
This question is examined at two levels: between the Commission and MS (EU solidarity
funding); and, between national governments and private operators (MS compensation
schemes).
As presented in the previous sections, the current distribution of financial risks is as follows:
In case of an outbreak, the MS take all necessary measures to eradicate the HO. Costs of
measures are either supported by the CA or by the private operators, depending on the
extent to which a specific mechanism exists in the MS for the sharing of costs.
The EC solidarity reimburses the phytosanitary measures incurred by MS as long as they
are paid by public funds. It can be used for all quarantine organisms and phytosanitary
measures (i.e. there is no prioritization of HO or measures, except for all kinds of
restrictions (e.g. replacement of destroyed trees) and prohibition of use where a
maximum co-financing ceiling of 25% applies compared to 50% for the other measures).
The EC solidarity regime does not cover:
o The cases of natural spread;
o The losses incurred by private operators.
As highlighted during the surveys, the interviews and the February stakeholders‘ conference,
the financial consequences of any case of outbreak are a function of the time of detection of
the outbreak (the later the time, the higher the costs) and the ability to act immediately once
the HO is detected. This ability is a function of the degree of knowledge of the HO; the
availability of financial, technical and human resources to eradicate the HO and the dispersal
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 243