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) v. Speed up process for adoption and adaptation of both emergency and control/eradication measures. In terms of improvements that can be considered under option i (status quo), a key improvement concerns the development of an EU/MS Emergency Team (this option is discussed further in section 5.8.4). The evaluation results, confirmed by the February conference, identified significant support for strengthening emergency action, along the basic structure and concepts developed in particular by options ii (horizon scanning) and iii (harmonised development of contingency plans). However, the refinement of these options (particularly of option iii, for which a number of elements need to be considered) will need further analysis and discussion. With the feedback available to date, it is clear that there is significant scope to improve contingency planning and make it more systematic and harmonized across the EU. In this context, the development of a harmonized framework could be based on recently developed EPPO guidelines outlining the generic elements of contingency plans 289 . Pursuing these options can also provide opportunity for involving stakeholders, thus responding to demand for more transparency, communication and consultation in adoption of emergency measures. An additional point to be addressed should be the quick adoption of emergency measures at EU level, ensuring that the risk assessment process does not lead to delays in the decisionmaking. In this context, a group within DG SANCO, made up by the FVO and some MS experts, could coordinate action, i.e. to supervise and develop measures based on existing evidence. Emergency measures should also be evaluated periodically in order to assess the need for revision in the context of changed situations. Recommendation 6: Based on the analysis of the options for emergency action, options ii (Horizon scanning), option iii (Compulsory development of contingency plans according to harmonized framework) and option v (Speed up process for adoption and adaptation of both emergency and control/eradication measures) would be the most recommended, on the basis that they represent the best balance of advantages/disadvantages against anticipated impacts. It is noted that these options are complementary (i.e. can be adopted in parallel), and that, in all cases, they include the improvements suggested in the status-quo (option i). 289 EPPO standard PM 9/10(1) for contingency planning. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 346
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Table 5-8: Preliminary analysis of options: emergency action Emergency action: preliminary analysis of each option Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages i. Status quo (with improvements) ii. Horizon scanning Improvements in the form of ‗soft‘ interventions. This includes the creation of an EU emergency team with support from MS (similar to EU/MS Veterinary emergency team). Introduction of systematic examination of potential threats and future developments. This can build on experience of existing initiatives (e.g. UK) 290 . Low. Relatively low cost (lower than options ii-v). The emergency team should be set up drawing on available experience at MS/EU/international level (setting up of a list of experts on the model of veterinary emergency team in AH) COM: Cost of setting up and funding the team relatively low (i.e. indemnities for veterinary team 300€/per day/per expert). MS CAs: Positive impact derived from quick adoption of right measures for outbreaks. Low-medium. COM: Increase in costs and required resources depend on implementation (e.g. the cost to undertake such studies in the UK ranged from circa €10 to €100,000 /study). If built upon existing studies in MS, lower resources required for coordination. Cost increases to be balanced against potential savings longer term from early detection of risks. Significant improvements can be made relatively readily and at low cost; Quicker and independent assessment of outbreaks Quicker action and assisted response in terms of eradication measures Improves prevention and precautionary approach; Can inform the need for emergency measures and adjustment to rules (e.g. lists of HOs) to enable more rapid action; Opportunity for stakeholder involvement in peacetime; Opportunity for wider cooperation across EU (exchange of information, cooperation between MS and In-depth review of the global approach for responding to emergencies is postponed if only this option is considered; Requires increase in resources; May require more fundamental change in mind set (to achieve information exchange and cooperation between MS). 290 This process is currently undertaken by the UK, in the context of the ―Horizon scanning Project of DEFRA‖. It consists of setting up a group of experts (at MS or EU level) interacting with a range of other stakeholders (e.g. universities, industry) in order to explore potential future issues. The horizon scanning Project in the UK has undertaken two studies, one on IAS and one on plant health. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 347
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:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 379: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
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?