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) Emergency action: preliminary analysis of each option Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages stakeholders); On the basis of wider cooperation, can allow coordinated monitoring of emerging risks, and can improve transparency; Potential savings longer term from early detection of risks. iii. Compulsory development of contingency plans according to harmonized framework Obligation for MS to develop contingency plans, according to harmonised framework 291 . To be further defined whether such contingency plans should be generic or pest-specific 292 , or by commodity. The compulsory actions may be subject to cofinancing. On an administrative level, need to set up decision-making structures and procedures, as well as coordination body. Medium-high. COM: Development of harmonised framework as such would be of relatively lower cost, especially with recent adoption of relevant EPPO standard; there may also be cases where existing contingency plan models (e.g. AH) provide good basis for replication. Also, MS who have in place contingency plans may provide models for other MS. Increase in resources for coordination. If co-financing applied, low-medium increase in funds needed for mandatory measures. MS CAs: Development of contingency plans might incur more significant costs, depending on model to be followed (possibility of relying on existing CP as from above). Positive impact in terms of quick adoption of measures/early action. Stakeholders: Depending on model to be followed, there may be a certain degree Coordinated preparedness for emerging risks; Opportunity for stakeholder involvement in peacetime, thus improving transparency of action in emergency situations; Development of plans could stimulate increased stakeholder involvement, paving the way for responsibility and cost sharing (e.g. AUS experience)*; Operational problems are addressed before they arise (i.e. definition of additional resources needed, in terms of staff and diagnostics, before emergency occurs); Recently adopted EPPO standard on generic elements for contingency planning provides basis on which to Feasibility of practical application to depend on model of contingency plan to be followed. 291 The roles and responsibilities of COM vs MS vs stakeholders in plan development and implementation needs to be further defined. The Commission should define objectives to be achieved and minimum mandatory measures to be undertake by MS. 292 ISPM No. 9 Guidelines for eradication, section 1.2, IPPC, 1998 recommends the development of pest-specific contingency plans for those pests which have a high potential for introduction and for which an eradication plan is deemed necessary Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 348
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Emergency action: preliminary analysis of each option Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages of involvement, with clear responsibilities defined (and sanctions). Positive impact if mechanism of cost/responsibility sharing is in place. See case study of Australia EPPRD build a harmonised framework; Easier definition of minimum mandatory emergency actions. Time saving by avoiding lengthy deliberations scheme provided below. iv. Minimum mandatory emergency actions (for high priority pests) v. Speed up process for adoption/ adaptation of both emergency and control/ eradication measures Introduction for obligations for MS to undertake obligatory actions in case of outbreaks. Such actions could include definition of demarcated areas, intensifying monitoring, and eradication measures. Mandatory actions could be subject to cofinancing and sanctions for non compliance could be introduced Decision-making to be based on available evidence on phytosanitary risk (includes the use of fasttrack PRAs) and consequent evaluation of appropriateness of emergency and control/eradication measures. Low-medium. COM: Low impact in terms of resources for definition of mandatory actions. Medium increase in resources needed in case of co-financing. MS CAs: Medium impact in terms of resources needed (lower in case cofinancing introduced). Overall, positive impact from effectiveness of measures to be undertaken (i.e. savings from failures related to incomplete or incorrect implementation of measures) Stakeholders: Low-medium in terms of costs as obligations would arise. Lower in case co-financing is introduced. Low-medium. Increase in costs and required resources to depend on implementation. Cost increases have to be balanced against potential savings from timely response to emergencies. Greater effectiveness and efficiency in case of emergency (as AH) Harmonised response Defined responsibilities and liability More emphasis on prevention/early response; Decisive action in emergency situation will encourage exporters to provide evidence of action taken to reduce risk; Potential savings from timely (therefore more effective) response to emergencies Improves credibility of EU among TCs. Steps difficult to define given range of PH problems (depending on prioritisation and existing contingency plans) Excessive measures may be taken if fast track PRA, but long term objective remains to allow/facilitate trade (conditions relaxed when evidence provided). Also review after a period may allow revision of measures Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 349
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:
Page 331 and 332: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 381: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
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?