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)
communication and consultation in decision-making for a more effective and efficient
implementation of the regime.
All options assume disincentives (sanctions/penalties) are inherent in the system through the
conditions to be attached under each option. Thus, for example, conditions could include
removal of the right - in cases of non-compliance - for growers to receive compensation
(option i a) and b)), or for CAs to receive co-financing (option i c)).
Finally, all options may use conditions that promote alignment of the plant health regime
objectives more effectively to the objectives of environmental policies and the CAP, for
example by making payments to growers (option i.a) and i.b) or to MS (option i.c) conditional
upon implementation of good agricultural practices (GAPs such as rotation). Examples
include commercial schemes like GLOBALGAP and government schemes, like the definition
of GAP in the USDA Risk Management Agency crop insurance scheme).
Recommendation 9:
On the basis of the evaluation results, confirmed by the February conference, and the
results of the evaluation of the solidarity regime, option i (a) (Extend the current scope of
solidarity to cover loss of destroyed material) and option i (c) (Extend the current scope
of solidarity to co-financing of certain measures e.g. surveillance, contingency planning)
are the most recommended options.
It is also recommended to carry out further analysis of the possibility to introduce costresponsibility
sharing schemes, in line with the ongoing development of this concept in
the animal health field.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 366