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)
5.7 Incentives
5.7.1 Background
A major issue explored by the evaluation is the availability of incentives at all level, to
stimulate the various organisations involved in implementing the CPHR to take responsibility
for the plant health chain as a whole.
The evaluation of the CPHR during the last two decades has demonstrated the importance of
prevention, rapid notification, early action and appropriate implementation of surveillance,
eradication and emergency and – ultimately – containment and control plans, all of which
emerged as key elements for the success of plant health strategies. Currently there is a lack of
incentives for ensuring these elements are approximately and sufficiently in place. This
deficiency is evident at various levels, e.g. for private operators (grower/trader) depending on
sector, as well as at the level of the CAs.
The lack of incentives may undermine the achievement of the regime‘s objectives, as has been
demonstrated by some failures of the system in the past. It is crucial therefore to establish
clear lines of responsibility and roles for all actors via the proportionate structuring of
incentives and sanctions.
General survey results (Q 7.9):
How should organizational aspects be developed and improved in future to ensure the effective implementations
of plant health provisions?
- With regard to incentives, the introduction of compensation to operators for mandatory destruction of infested
material is considered as an incentive for timely reporting by 21 out of 24 MS CA and 12 out of 22
stakeholders (1MS CA and 7 MS do not know) and as an incentive for the effective implementation of
control measures by 21 out of 24 MS CA and 13 out of 23 stakeholders (0 MS Ca and 5 stakeholders do not
know);
- The increased use of sanctions for the timely reporting of outbreaks is supported by 16 out of 24 MS CAs and
5 out of 23 stakeholders (3 MS CA and 10 stakeholders do not know); its increased use for the effective
implementation of control measures is supported by15 out of 23 MS CAs and 6 out of 23 stakeholders (2 MS
CA and 8 stakeholders do not know);
- 17 out of 24 MS CAs and 9 out of 23 stakeholders (4MS CA and 9 stakeholders do not know) are in favour of
the introduction of liability between producers as a form of incentive for the effective implementation of
control measures;
- Delegation of tasks and duties to other bodies is opposed by 15 out of 24 MS CAs and is supported by 9 out
of 23 stakeholders (3 MS CA and 4 stakeholders do not know); more centralization of tasks and duties to the
‗Responsible Official Bodies‘ is supported by 11 out 24 MS CAs and rejected by 15 out of 23 stakeholders (6
MS CA and 6 stakeholders do not know);
- The increase in funding for plant health services at MS level is supported by 22 out of 24 MS CAs and 17 out
of 23 stakeholders (1 MS CA and 7 stakeholders do not know); the re-definition of priorities within the
national PH budget by 16 out of 25 MS CAs and 11 out of 24 stakeholders (3 MS CA and 12 stakeholders do
not know).
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 363