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
ii. Potential role for
cost and
responsibility
sharing (CRS)
In line with current
discussion on CRS
schemes in the context of
the EU Strategy on Animal
Health 300 .
High impact in terms of costs.
Actual increase in costs to
depend on implementation and
scope, but costs would be
spread across participants.
These higher costs have to be
balanced against the potential
longer term savings and
benefits from early/better
detection of risks, which again
would be spread across
participants.
Allows a more systematic and
effective approach to sharing
responsibilities and providing
incentives, by viewing the regime as
a whole (rather than the more
isolated elements of options i and ii);
Should improve both CA and
stakeholder involvement, thus more
transparency and consultation in
regime implementation;
Harmonised approach followed
across related regimes (plant health,
animal health);
Could improve alignment to other
EU policy objectives (CAP,
environmental)
While CRS may work for
some sectors that are highly
organized for other reasons
(e.g. the potato sector for
marketing), it may not work
for other more fragmented
sectors with disparate
interests – however, schemes
may be adjusted to fit
specific sectoral context and
structures;
Not clear what role and
participation for noncommercial
sectors,
including owners for green
spaces etc.
300 While there are similarities and parallels with the animal health sector, it is noted that there are also important differences. The purpose of CRS may be different:
for example the need for protection to prevent catastrophic trade impacts or consequences for human health applies for some animal health issues, whereas for
many PH issues the need is possibly one of more long-term efficiency, rather than immediate disaster prevention. These issues are discussed in section 3.12.7.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 369