2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Our database of relevant literature has been continuously built up over the course of the evaluation with relevant articles, publications, etc. from the ongoing desk research and documents which have been brought to our attention. A list of the key documents identified and/or reviewed to date is provided in Annex 7. 1.4.3 General survey of Competent Authorities and stakeholders The general survey of Competent Authorities (CAs) was launched on 25 September 2009 with a deadline for response of 8 weeks. It covered over 50 pre-identified contacts in the field of plant health, as well as the CAs responsible for forestry 15 (the current list of the Standing Forestry Committee includes 97 contacts), in the 27 MS. Following a number of requests by various MS, the original response deadline was extended to 30 November 2009. The general survey of stakeholders was launched on 5 October 2009 with a response deadline of 8 weeks. It covered 25 EU associations and their national members (an estimated 500-600 organisations), as well as relevant international and research organisations, and NGOs. Again, following requests by stakeholders and in line with the approach for CAs, it was agreed to extend the original deadline to 30 November 2009; some further extension was given exceptionally in a few cases to provide more flexibility to stakeholders where this was necessary to enable a more comprehensive response to the questionnaire. Generally, the feedback from CAs and stakeholders has been positive in that the questionnaire was considered to raise a number of relevant and important issues. However, due to the length of the survey and the complexity of the policy issues being addressed, as well as the number of experts that each organisation needed to involve in its internal consultations for replying to the questionnaire (i.e. members at national level in the case of the EU professional organisations; other authorities/agencies, stakeholders, research organisations, diagnostic laboratories in the case of the MS CAs) more time was needed for them to gather and synthesise the various positions and the requested data. A total of 66 responses have been received, of which 28 from plant health CAs (all MS except Lux) 16 , and 37 from stakeholders. No separate responses were received from forestry CAs, but in most MS the plant health CAs engaged in a consultation process for filling in the questionnaire which involved forestry CAs. In the case of stakeholders, out of the total 37 responses received, 8 were from EU level professional associations, which in all cases involved prior consultation with their national members. It is noted that 3 more EU level associations (FRESHFEL, Copa-Cogeca and CELCAA) submitted a position paper, although this was not a direct response to the survey 15 Coordinated with DG ENV and DG AGRI. 16 In the case of two MS, responses were received from two CAs, and these have been merged to provide one response for each MS. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 6
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) questionnaire as such 17 . An overview of the stakeholder representativeness (MS, sectors) is presented in the table below. Table 1-2: Stakeholder response to the general survey MS level: DE 5 NL UK 4 SE 2 DK 1 ES 1 FR 1 PT 1 PL 1 SK? 1 Total MS level 23 EU level: Total MS/EU 31 Other (a) 6 TOTAL 37 Responses to general survey: stakeholders (a) Includes: 2x FVO, DG ENV, DG Trade, 2 individuals 6 (of which 1 is an international logistics company) 8 (ESA, ECPA, COPA-COGECA, FEFPEB, CPPC, AIPH, EFNA, EUROPATAT) 17 Data and findings from the general survey are included in the analysis in this Final Report. The full quantitative results of the survey are presented in Annex 8 (sections 1 and 2). It is noted that the possibility to reply ‗do not know‘ was given in each question, in case respondents did not have a view or could not take a position or the question asked was not relevant to them. Several of the respondents (MS CAs and EU level stakeholders, in particular) have commented that this possibility was also used when there was a great divergence of opinion amongst those consulted by the organisation. This point is taken into account when interpreting the results for those questions where the number of ‗do not know‘ replies is significant. 1.4.4 Expert interviews The main phase of the evaluation involved a second round of interviews, in addition to the exploratory interviews carried out during the structuring (inception) phase. 17 The FRESHFEL position paper is taken into account in the analysis, but not in the quantitative results of the general survey, as it has not been a direct response to the questionnaire as such. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 7
Page 1 and 2: I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4: Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 25 and 26: 7. Implementation of control and em
Page 39: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 49 and 50: Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 53 and 54: Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 63 and 64: Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 91 and 92:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?