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) mode of the HO (the more the HO is confined to a specific crop and doesn‘t spread rapidly, the greater the probability to be able to eradicate it). Overall, the MS CAs and stakeholders consulted during the surveys and the interviews are only partly satisfied with the current distribution of financial risks. Specific cost survey results: Q1.4. a) (asked to CAs only). Extent to which the EU financial contribution has been appropriate to addressing the needs of the CPHR, in terms of coverage and funding 12 out of 25 MS CAs consider that the EU financial contribution has been partly appropriate (7 MS CAs do not know and 4 consider it has been not much appropriate) Q1.4. d) for CAs and c) for stakeholders. Extent to which the EU financial contribution has provided the right incentives to support the specific objectives of the CPHR 10 out of 25 MS CAs and 0 out of 8 stakeholders consider that the EU financial contribution has provided the right incentives (11 MS CAs and 7 stakeholders do not know) Q1.4.e) for CAs and d) for stakeholders. Extent to which the EU financial contribution has provided unintended negative or adverse incentives to engage in behaviour against the specific objectives of the CPHR 1 out of 25 MS CAs and 0 out of 8 stakeholders consider that EU financial contribution has provided unintended negative or adverse incentives (14 MS CAs and 7 stakeholders do not know) 3.11.7.1 EU solidarity funding At EU level, the solidarity regime is a financing mechanism open to all MS that have incurred or will incur eradication expenditure in combating a HO for the emergence of which they are not responsible. Art. 23 (4) of Directive 2000/29/EC describes the information needed in order to qualify for the financial support. The MS shall apply before the end of the calendar year after which the appearance of the HO was detected and provide detailed information, including on: The identity of the consignment through which the HO was introduced or the probable source of contamination; The necessary measures taken or planned; and The results obtained and the actual or estimated cost of the expenditures incurred or to be incurred, and the proportion of such expenditures covered or to be covered by public funds. Art. 23(2) of the Directive lists the types of measures eligible for solidarity financing, which include phytosanitary actions such as: a) Destruction, disinfection, disinfestations, sterilisation, cleaning or any other treatment, b) Inspections and testing; and c) Prohibitions or restrictions (in the use of growing substrates, cultivable areas, plants, plant products or other objects other than material from the consignment) aimed at eradicating the harmful organism in the demarcated zone. Expenditures directly relating to the necessary measures are considered, in particular: Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 244
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Payments made from public funds in order to cover all or part of the costs of the measures of (a) and (b), except those related to the running costs of the competent official body; Payments made from public funds in order to compensate for all or part of the financial losses other than loss of earnings resulting from the measures described in (c). Therefore the cost for growers whose plant material is destroyed is not compensated, although a possibility to cover such costs has been inserted but the implementing Regulation has never been developed. A minimum threshold of €25,000 exists for the eligible costs 230 . The majority of CAs and stakeholders consulted for the purpose of this evaluation – in common with the feedback received during the Solidarity Regime evaluation - consider that the EU financial contribution does not sufficiently address the appropriate issues in the most efficient way. During the solidarity regime evaluation, the majority of MS CAs agreed that it is a sound instrument whose underlying principles aspire to promote efficient and effective outcomes, i.e. timely notification of the outbreak, taking all necessary eradication measures, introduction of the dossier at the latest before the end of the calendar year following that in which the appearance of the HO was detected, maximum duration, maximum Community contribution of 50%, one dossier for eradication measures per year, degressivity rule. The current rate of compensation was also considered to provide a proper balance between MS and Community cost sharing. Nevertheless, the contribution of the solidarity regime to the overall objective of protecting and raising the health status of plants in the Community is considered to be limited because: 1) The scope of action is relatively narrow. Some outbreaks currently not eligible for solidarity funding may have significance for the entire Community and the action taken by the first MS could prevent the spread of the HO to the neighbouring MS; and, 2) All HOs are eligible for funding and all dossiers receive the same contribution in percentage. The solidarity regime does not use any prioritisation mechanism as a means of better targeting its resources where risks are greatest. The incentives that the solidarity regime represents remain relatively limited for the following reasons: The solidarity regime is mainly an instrument of reimbursement a posteriori with reduced possibility for intervention at the time of appearance of the HO; Solidarity funding is allocated to cover the phytosanitary costs of an outbreak for which the MS is not responsible (i.e. MS is the victim of the emergence of an HO). However, 230 According to Art. 4(3) of Commission Reg. No 1040/2002/EC, as amended by Commission Reg. No 738/2005/EC, the financial contribution from the Community shall not be granted where the total amount of eligible expenditure per year is less than € 25,000. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 245
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:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228: 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 277: 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 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?