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)
Incentives: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
New measures (emphasis on prevention)
c. Extend to new
measures
Measures for co-financing
consideration may include
e.g. surveillance,
contingency planning,
prevention of emerging
risks and emergency
actions.
COM/MS CAs: Medium -
High impact in terms of costs.
The scale of increase in costs
will depend on:
Number and type of HOs
surveyed (see section 5.3
for estimates and
discussion).
Models of contingency
plans (see section 5.4 for
estimates and discussion)
Measures for prevention of
emerging risks.
Implementing a clear cut
belt at the frontier between
Russia and the EU to
prevent the entry of forest
pests would impose cut
millions of trees.
Measures to put in place in
cases of emergency.
Higher costs to be balanced
against the potential longer
term savings from improved
prevention and early/better
detection of risks, or a more
coordinated approach to
eradication.
High positive impacts in terms
of increased effectiveness and
efficiency through cofinancing
a large set of
measures to ensure early
action.
Would improve CA involvement and
may extend to increased stakeholder
participation;
Would improve the uptake of
measures, and can foster a more
harmonised and transparent
approach/uptake;
Can be made conditional on EU
coordination;
More equitable, provided level of cofinancing
takes into account certain
criteria: e.g. increased support for
poorer MS or MS that are at highest
risk of exposure, e.g. acting as
frontier for EU;
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);
Potentially significant
increase in costs and required
resources, at both EU and
MS level;
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 368