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) where self-control and certification systems are in place, and the CA retaining a supervisory and overall control role. This approach is currently followed in the food and feed sector, based on the provisions on food/feed business operator responsibility to ensure food safety under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. This issue could be explored further in the context of the option for increased responsibility and cost sharing (Theme E), or under a more fundamental review of the plant passport system. It has not been explored further in this evaluation because the plant passport system was not found to be performing to a standard that would allow taking on this option at this stage. As it stands, the system already allows some delegation of responsibility to operators for plant passport issuing, the implementation of which was found to have some shortcomings. Also, as evidenced by the results of the general survey, the majority of the response has been for at least some tightening of the rules and increase in the number of official controls. Thus, the options which were identified here refer to components of the current system that need to be addressed as a priority, before consideration could be given to whether the delegation of current responsibilities to private operators is further extended to carrying out inspections under own control. It is noted, however, that an effective and efficient system should optimise the use of resources and synergies that can be created and, in this context, improving the role, responsibilities and involvement of business operators is an important objective longer term. Recommendation 7: The analysis of options on the Plant Passport (PP) system suggests that option ii (Revise the scope of application) and iii (Harmonise PP document) are 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 both be adopted), and that, in both cases, they include the improvements suggested in the statusquo (options i). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 354
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Table 5-9: Preliminary analysis of options: Plant Passport system Plant Passport system: preliminary analysis of each option Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages i. Status quo (with emphasis on improving enforcement) Improvements with a view to promoting enforcement, including via sanctions or penalties for non compliance. Low. Relatively low cost (lower than options ii-iv). ii. Clarify the scope and level of application, in terms of: Low-medium-high. Actual costs to depend on implementation. a. Plants Adjust and define application specificities, e.g. lot or individual plant, source and species to improve transparency and administrative manageability. b. Marketing stage iii. Harmonise plant passport (PP) document Define stage of marketing chain to which plant passports should apply (chain extends from importer/grower to <strong>final</strong> consumer). Harmonisation could be: Full (common Medium positive impact on effectiveness in trading pest free plants and plant products. Low negative impact on efficiency as additional work will be required to label each individual plant. Medium positive impact on effectiveness in trading pest free plants and plant products Low negative impact on efficiency as additional work will be required to label plants and plant product at <strong>final</strong> consumer. Low-medium. Actual costs to depend on implementation. Improves credibility and confidence in system; Some improvements can be made relatively readily and at low cost. Increases relevance and effectiveness of the system Improve traceability Clarification and transparency Increases relevance and effectiveness of the system; Clarification and transparency in which stages of marketing chain plant passports should be required Improves PP visibility, thus product traceability; Upgrades the value of the PP as a In-depth review of the approach to plant passport system is postponed if only this option is considered; May not be feasible to apply sanctions and penalties; Do not establish full traceability (back and forward) Needs uniform application and perception of uniform application to work (level playing field). Unless it is linked to improved enforcement it does not increase credibility of system or plant health status Unless it is linked to improved enforcement it does not increase credibility of system or plant health status Experience of past attempts has shown excessive difficulties in pursuing this option, particularly Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 355
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:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 387: 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?