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)
in the animal health strategy, although consideration of the use of this tool for plant health is
not as advanced as it is for animal health while there can be important differences pertaining
to the objectives, role and scope of cost-responsibility sharing between these two sectors 299 .
The Commission aims to adopt by 2011 a legislative proposal introducing a harmonised EU
framework for responsibility- and cost-sharing, which may consider a compensation system
based on the categorisation of animal diseases combined with risk-prevention incentives.
Among the options presented is the development of an EU harmonized framework for CRSS
(Cost and Responsibility Sharing Scheme): either, by establishing an obligation for a gradual
introduction of CRSS by all MS respecting certain harmonized criteria established at EU
level; or, by establishing the possibility for individual MS to develop CRSS provided that
these schemes comply with EU harmonized criteria while allowing others to maintain the
option of getting Community co-financing according to the current rules.
Nevertheless, several differences between the animal health and the plant health areas have
been identified during the solidarity regime that lead to the conclusion that such a harmonised
framework would be more difficult to implement for plant health, notably:
The plant health area covers a diverse range of crops and harmful organisms which
would make such a system both difficult to conceive and implement practically;
Moreover many pests are of wider public impact as they also affect public green spaces.
Overall, producers in this sector are reluctant to support the principle of paying a
contribution to a national system. Their view is that current plant health risks are too
small to justify such a contribution. This could be explained by the fact that, to date,
there have been relatively fewer and smaller scale crises in plant health generating
losses for producers/growers in the plant products sector comparable to those incurred
in the livestock sector. Only in more recent years, the EU forest and agricultural sector
has started to experience certain major crises (e.g. PWN) that have generated losses the
scale of which compares to major animal health crises. In view of the challenges of
increasing globalisation and climate change, such outbreaks are expected to become a
growing phenomenon. Most of the concerned product sectors (e.g. horticulture) are
highly fragmented and not well organised. Their membership typically consists mainly
of small to medium producers;
Option ii) could also be seen as an ultimate goal, with option i being an intermediary step.
However, the refinement of these options (particularly of option ii, 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 pursue some form of cost sharing,
although perhaps more with options i) and less with option ii).
It is noted that any of the options will improve both CA and stakeholder involvement,
compared to current situation, thus responding to demand for more transparency,
299 It is noted that a pre-feasibility study on cost sharing schemes in the animal health sector was undertaken in
2005-2006 in the context of the evaluation of the animal health policy (by the FCEC for DG SANCO), which
preceded the current Animal Health Strategy.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 365