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)
5.7.2 Options and analysis
The options identified for further consideration are as follows:
i. Extend current scope of solidarity:
Eradication measures (current scope):
a. Extend (within current scope) to cover loss of destroyed material;
b. Extend (within current scope) to cover business losses;
New measures (new scope):
c. Co-financing of certain measures e.g. surveillance, contingency planning;
ii. Potential role for cost-responsibility sharing (in line with current discussion on such
initiatives in the context of the EU Strategy on Animal Health).
The evaluation results, confirmed by the February conference, identified significant support
for strengthening the system by sharing responsibility for all public and private actors
involved: CAs (MS/regions, COM) and stakeholders (commercial and non-commercial
sectors, professional and non-professional entities). This can be pursued through various
measures, ranging from ‗soft‘ interventions such as improving cooperation and networks
between the various actors, to involving economic and financial incentives. The latter are
pursued through the options that were identified during the evaluation.
Conclusions from the solidarity regime evaluation indicate a strong support to the extension
of the solidarity regime to cover the loss of destroyed material (option i.a) but not to cover
business losses (option i.b). Compensating producers for business losses is considered a
subjective process which can be highly variable in time and space; there is also the added
difficulty of calculating costs that are mainly market driven. The general view was that it
would be difficult to develop a process that would satisfy the needs of all MS and such an
exercise could be highly divisive.
The extensive consultations undertaken during the solidarity regime evaluation as well as the
present CPHR evaluation indicate that the reimbursement of the costs of destroyed plant
materials would be subject to the fulfilment of prevention measures by the private operators.
In addition, it is indicated that private operators should support part of the loss anyway, to
ensure a certain level of moral responsibility.
It is noted that, as explained under section 3.12.5, under the Article 68 measures of the CAP
Health Check, the development of mutual funds or insurance schemes to support economic
losses incurred by farmers due to HO outbreaks is envisaged. ‗Economic losses‘ refers to any
additional cost incurred by a farmer as a result of exceptional measures taken by the farmer
with the objective of reducing supply on the market concerned or any substantial loss of
production. This possibility is based on the modulation principle (making it possible for MS
to use, by sector, 10% of their national budget ceilings for direct payments for these purposes)
and does not represent additional Community expenditure.
Option ii) was included to initiate a first broad discussion on the issue of the potential EC role
for cost-responsibility sharing (CRS), and to update in line with the current parallel initiatives
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 364