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)
Priorities are defined among pests, on the basis of epidemiological analysis, PRA,
and/or cost/benefit analysis when available;
Natural spread is eligible for solidarity funding under certain conditions, e.g. when
eradication/containment is ―technically‖ possible and brings clear benefits to the plant
health status, the environment and/or the economy in the EU and to prevent an outbreak
in a given country from naturally spreading to a neighbouring country, or to reduce the
risk of such spread. If a given HO is widespread in the EU, eradication and/or
containment is no longer possible;
The conditions for funding in this case become more dependent on the achievement of
eradication results, what implies the definition of clear targets together with indicators
to measure the results of specific campaigns;
The necessary resources (financial or non financial) are devoted by the MS with the
support of the Commission to the eradication or containment of prioritised pests;
The Commission financial support is complemented with the provision of assistance: 1)
for better preparedness to emergency situations; and, 2) to ensure early and rapid
eradication in the event of outbreaks of prioritised pests or suspicion thereof.
The first line of responsibility for plant health rests with the MS and, in each of them,
with those who directly manage plants and plant products including growers, exporters,
importers, wholesalers and retail traders.
Recommendation 2:
The evaluation results, confirmed by the outcome of the conference of February, indicate
that in the context of an increased demand for better prevention and timely action against
outbreaks, but also to improve the consistency of the current approach, natural spread
needs to be explicitly included in the regime (option ii), and covered by the solidarity
regime (option iii) would maximise the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of this
approach (costs and benefits of the approach to be established on a case by case basis). On
this basis, the analysis of the options suggests that option ii is generally recommended but
consideration of option iii would be most recommended in certain specific cases.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 321