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)
Improving prevention intra-EU: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
€1-2 million per HO for EU-27 281 .
Stakeholders: Depending on degree of
involvement, costs for survey actions
could range significantly (low-high).
Introduction of co-financing by EC could
spread costs more equitably (option iv).
Higher costs to be balanced against the
potential longer term savings from early
detection of risks.
Potential savings from synergies
and better coordination of current
parallel surveillance programmes
between MS;
Potential savings longer term
from early detection of risks.
reduction in the long term.
iv. Introduction of
co-financing for
surveillance
Extension of funding
for MS (with cofinancing)
to carry on
surveillance.
Medium-high.
Increase in costs and required resources
could be significant. Impact depends on
approach followed for prioritisation, which
will ultimately determine number of HOs
COM: Higher costs related to co-financing
of the activity. On the basis of the current
costs for surveillance (see option iv), and
current co-financing rate (50%), estimated
costs could range between €0.5-1 million
per HO for EU-27 282 .
MS CAs: as in the case of COM (€0.5-1
million per HO for EU-27).
Stakeholders: Depending on degree of
involvement, low-high.
Higher costs to be balanced against the
potential longer term savings from early
detection of risks.
Spreads costs (EU:MS);
Provides incentive for effective
implementation, provided support
is made conditional on adequate
implementation;
More equitable, provided level of
co-financing takes into account
certain criteria: e.g. increased
support for poorer MS or MS that
are at highest risk of exposure
acting as the frontier for the EU
(e.g. borders with third
countries);
Demonstrates commitment to
action.
Potentially significant
increase in costs and required
resources, at both EU and MS
level;
Moral hazard (needs control
system and possible
sanctions; needs to specify
performance targets)
281 Significant variation in costs depending on HO. Main costs will relate to labour, followed by diagnosis (lower). There may be higher start up costs in year 1,
followed by cost reductions in subsequent years.
282 Assuming a 50% co-financing rate, as in current solidarity funding, with significant variation likely in costs depending on HO (see previous footnote). On an
exemplary basis, in the US, a total amount of US$ 45 million was provided by Federal funds in 2005 to survey over 100 high risk exotic insects, diseases and
weeds, on the basis they are considered to constitute a public good.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 343