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)
Table 5-11: Preliminary analysis of options: incentives
Incentives: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
i. Extend current scope of solidarity (co-financing):
Eradication measures (isolated outbreaks)
a. Extend (within
current scope) to
cover loss of
destroyed
material
b. Extend (within
current scope) to
cover business
losses
Expand the range of
eligible costs to include the
cost of destroyed plant
material
COM: Medium impact in
terms of higher costs.
Actual increase in costs to
depend on implementation
(eligibility criteria) and
potential scope (sectors, HOs).
Higher costs to be balanced
against the potential longer
term savings from early/better
detection of risks.
High positive impact in terms
of increased effectiveness and
efficiency due to more rapid
notification and eradication.
Medium-high.
Idem to a.
Under right conditions, can improve
stakeholder involvement and engage
them actively in regime
implementation.
Under the right conditions, can
improve effectiveness of
compensation as an incentive for
(earlier) reporting;
Position the solidarity regime at
producer level (political leverage)
Including destroyed material
expenditure in the list of eligible
costs for solidarity funding would
help to reach the threshold for single
small outbreaks. This may be
important in the early stages of an
outbreak and during the first year of
eradication.
Under the right conditions could
improve alignment to other EU
policy objectives (CAP,
environmental);
Could become an integral part of
option iii) (cost-responsibility
sharing);
Idem to a.
Potentially significant
increase in solidarity budget;
Possible additional costs and
administrative burden
associated with compiling
and managing the solidarity
dossier;
Risk of creating perverse
incentives, unless conditions
are attached to ensure correct
implementation (such as
moving to the direction of
option iii: cost-responsibility
sharing).
Idem to a.: increase in costs;
risk of perverse incentives;
Difficult to develop a process
that would satisfy the needs
of all MS.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 367