2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy area Evaluation Question (a) Summary of findings CPHR financial framework: Solidarity Fund EQ15: Effectiveness of CPHR communication and consultation. EQ21/22: Costs and benefits of the CPHR versus impacts. Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) plant material from other MS. It is recommended therefore that the use of EUROPHYT for compulsory notification should be extended from trade with third countries to intra-Community movements. Another set of improvements is suggested in order to make the system more user-friendly (e.g. improved search engines), to increase readability and usability of data for inspection targeting (e.g. data elaboration) and to increase the usefulness for signalling upcoming threats (e.g. modification of information required). The current communication activities around the CPHR are generally perceived to be limited, and confined mainly at public level (between COM and MS authorities). A more transparent communication of the actions to stakeholders, based upon a risk analysis and action scheme would contribute to better results. The current level of consultation in CPHR decision-making is generally perceived by stakeholders to be relatively limited, with traders seen as more represented via their organisations than producers/growers (in part due to less divergence of interests within the representative organisations). It is generally acknowledged that the CPHR has to seek a sensitive balance between conflicting interests (i.e. trade interests versus production interests, divergent interests across MS depending on production and trade interests). Furthermore, it is stressed that interests of stakeholders may not fully correspond to plant health protection objectives. Plant health encompasses significant public good components and, in this context, plant health authorities consider that the interests of stakeholders should be taken into account insofar they are in line with plant health objectives, which are considered the overriding priority for policy making in this field. On the other hand, stakeholders call for a proportionate and balanced approach in deciding on plant health measures, based on appropriate PRA. More generally, the need for raising public awareness on public health was also identified. Moving forward, options to improve current communication and consultation procedures are discussed in section Error! eference source not found.. The impacts of plant diseases can be as devastating as animal diseases. The CPHR has been partly successful in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of HOs. An analysis of the costs and benefits of the CPHR on a case by case basis indicates that, for a relatively limited budget (solidarity regime), the CPHR has nonetheless managed to control the spread of HOs that have potentially high economic, as well as environmental and social, impacts. There is, however, scope to improve the efficiency balance (cost: benefits) and the cost-effectiveness of measures, by strengthening prevention, intensifying action at the very start of outbreaks (early response to emergencies), improving the availability of incentives and disincentives in the system. These improvements would address current shortcomings of the solidarity regimeThe evaluation has confirmed the results of the earlier (2008) evaluation of the solidarity regime, in that the incentives provided by the regime remain relatively limited in a number of areas (intervention ex-post; exclusion of production losses; difficulty of assigning responsibility, particularly in cases of natural spread; lack of disincentives; non effective enforcement of penalties). The justification and added value of EU funding is also noted, as discussed in the future financial framework of the CPHR (section Error! Reference source not found.). (a) Includes the elements of the EQs that refer to existing provisions of the CPHR for the implementation of each policy area; excludes issues for which provisions are not currently stipulated. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 288
Source: FCEC, based on results of the evaluation Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 289
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:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272: 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 321: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?