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) has been only partly effective in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of HOs in the EU, as outlined in the previous sections. The outcome of the evaluation for each of the specific policy areas covered by the CPHR is summarised in the following tables. Several measures are assessed to have only partly been useful or effective and this is mostly attributed to the following underlying factors: Incomplete implementation by MS, or lack of harmonised approach in implementation between MS. Gaps in implementation are often due to variability in knowledge, training, interests and perspectives, traditions, and administrative structures, capacities and resources between MS in the EU-27; Constraints in availability of staff and resources devoted to plant health in general, which is evident at all levels (EC, MS, research bodies and diagnostic facilities etc.); Lack of clarity in certain provisions (e.g. on IAS and natural spread), which reinforced by differences in knowledge and perspectives, creates potential for wide interpretation of rules (it has often been argued, in this context, that a regulation would impose a stricter enforcement to MS, thus reducing the possibility for deviations); Limited public awareness, thus political support to finance and enact the policy: this is evident with the relatively limited resources made available to plant health administrations by national budgets, and lack of commitment to adopt/enforce certain actions, thus reducing the possibility for drastic measures at the start of the outbreaks; Lack of incentives and disincentives (including in the form of sanctions/penalties), in the current system, or – where such incentives/disincentives exist non enforcement. The lack of incentives to <strong>report</strong> and notify findings in a timely manner has been found to constitute a key reason for delays in notifications, which has ramifications on the speed, thus the effectiveness and efficiency, of action to address the outbreak; The limited support and lengthy decision-making process in emergency situations, which results in measures taken too slowly and too late (in this context, it is argued that a dedicated financial instrument, e.g. in the form of a ‗plant health fund‘ would enable decision-makers to speed up the process); and, The changing context within which the policy operates, in particular the growing challenges of globalisation and climate change (as outlined in section 4.1.2). In addition, the assessment of the financial framework of the CPHR, which has expanded and updated on the independent evaluation of the Solidarity Fund carried out in 2008, has concluded that a key deficiency of the current system is that it only acts a posteriori and does not cover any measures or activities taken on a preventive basis, before or as soon as, outbreaks or new findings occur. This results in loss of efficiency, as investment on prevention in the longer term ensures greater cost effectiveness than measures to address outbreaks, particularly measures taken at more advanced stages of outbreak when the targeted HO is established and may be fairly spread. The later action is taken the more costly and less cost-effective the remedy. Beyond the solidarity regime as such, the current CPHR does not sufficiently address prevention. Emergency measures are generally adopted too late, and there is no formal framework or support to deal with emergency situations. Contingency plans are not systematically in place (either at MS, or at EU level). Furthermore, beyond compulsory Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 278
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) surveillance, the efforts for more general surveillance made by MS are relatively limited (with significant variation between MS) and are not systematic or coordinated. The current emphasis of the CPHR on prevention and early response, including the solidarity regime as such, is therefore judged to be largely inadequate. General survey results (Q 6.7)*: Should the Community Plant Health Regime be revised in order to have more focus on prevention and early action? All the MS CAs (25) and 23 out of 27 stakeholders agree that more focus should be given to prevention and early action (1 stakeholder ‗does not know‘. * Q6.6 for stakeholders On the other hand, the evaluation has also addressed the question of the deadweight effects of the CPHR (‗What if no Community financing was in place‘). The analysis of the CPHR costs and benefits during the period from 1993 to date (section 3.11) demonstrates that: a) the budget devoted to the CPHR to date remains relatively limited; and b) on a case by case basis, the CPHR has had clear benefits (as discussed in particular in the context of 5 HOs: Anoplophora (chinensis and glabripennis), Ceratocystis (fagacearum and fimbriata), Erwinia amylovora, Grapevine flavescence dorée and Phytophthora ramorum). In conclusion, through the measures imposed in these cases, the CPHR has contributed either to the avoidance of the introduction of potentially injurious HOs or to slow down their spread, resulting in significant overall benefits in all these cases. Notwithstanding its successes, the CPHR can nonetheless be improved to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures taken. Moving forward, it is noted that new challenges, notably globalisation and climate change as increasingly evidenced by the new risks and increase in solidarity budget spending of recent years, require the adjustment of the regime for the future. The identified weaknesses and shortcomings, as well as future needs and challenges, point in the direction of potential options for improvement and these have been developed and assessed on the basis of the wide consultation carried out by the FCEC under this evaluation, as outlined in section 5. At a conceptual level, the various options aim to respond to the need for: ‣ More prevention; ‣ Better risk targeting; ‣ More solidarity: moving from MS to EU approach for more joint action to tackle risks of EU significance. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 279
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:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 309 and 310: Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 315 and 316: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 323 and 324: Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
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?