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) 5.9.3 Extent to which the necessary financial instruments for the CPHR are in place: The adequacy of the solidarity regime as such has been discussed under the evaluation of the Solidarity Fund. The evaluation concluded that: “The solidarity regime was originally conceived as a financial mechanism for reimbursement a posteriori of expenses incurred by a MS in the event of a harmful organism outbreak. It was not designed to provide strategic or technical management of eradication/control programmes across the Community. Its scope of action is very limited due to restrictive rules on eligibility criteria and costs. The overall contribution of the solidarity regime to protecting and raising the status of plant health in the Community as well as to the appropriate application of EU legislation is thus very limited. To the extent that a more proactive and strategic approach is needed in future for the CPHR, the above conclusions suggest that the solidarity regime as it stands may need to be adapted. Furthermore, several of the MS CAs interviewed during the field visits indicated the need for more emergency preparedness, for example the current lack of an advisory emergency team with biological, economic, juridical and practical experience. This confirms the conclusions of the solidarity regime evaluation, according to which, a financial instrument is needed for better preparedness in case of emergency. The evaluation suggests the need to develop an EU emergency team to assist the Commission in supporting MS in phytosanitary matters relating to certain plant pests. Such a team has already been developed in the area of animal health (Commission Decision 2007/142/EC 308 ). This option is discussed in section 5.4. 308 According to the Commission Decision 207/142/EC, ―members of the team shall be entitled to an indemnity for their participation in the team‘s on-the-spot activities and for serving as team leader or rapporteur of a specific mission […]. Reimbursement of travel and subsistence cost shall be paid by the Commission‖. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 380
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Recommendation 15: The evaluation of the CPHR performance to date, and in particular of the financial framework (solidarity regime) has extensively highlighted the mismatch of currently available resources to objectives, which underpins many of the identified shortcomings and weaknesses. The above analysis of options for the future has in all cases pointed to the need to increase resources and/or prioritise to meet the objectives set out in the options. The Commission will have to reflect on the best option to follow. The evaluation results have also confirmed the conclusions of the solidarity regime evaluation, according to which, a financial instrument is needed for better preparedness in case of emergency. In this context, the evaluation recommends that the merits of developing a specific financial instrument in this sector, possibly in the form of a Plant Health Fund in parallel to the Animal Health Fund, need to be examined further. 6 Conclusions and recommendations The evaluation of the various measures implemented under the current Community Plant Health Regime (CPHR) indicates that, in the last 15 years, the policy has only partially been effective in preventing the entry and establishment, or where this has already occurred, in containing the spread of major pest incursions of significant potential economic, social and environmental impact in the EU. The analysis of the regime‘s costs and benefits since 1993 demonstrates that the budget devoted to the CPHR to date remains relatively limited and, on a case by case basis, the CPHR has had clear benefits (e.g. Anoplophora, Ceratocystis, Erwinia amylovora, Grapevine flavescence dorée and Phytophthora ramorum, as well as potato brown and ring rot). Through the measures imposed in these cases, the CPHR has contributed either to avoid the introduction of potentially injurious HOs or to slow down their spread, resulting in significant overall benefits and cost prevention. Despite positive results in some cases, the regime overall has not been fully effective in meeting its objectives and, in its current form, was found to have both some stronger and some weaker aspects. A number of areas were identified where improvements are needed. The identified weaknesses are partly due to the fact that the regime has been in place for a long period and the world has changed. The current regime is the product of a series of ad hoc, rather than strategic or systemic, adjustments to the various developments in the context the regime has operated in (notably: the introduction of the Single Market in 1993; successive EU enlargements in 1995, 2004 and 2007; EU international and bilateral relations). This is the first time that an opportunity exists to develop this policy area on the basis of a more complete and coherent strategy. A larger EU of 27 MS has meant that there is a more diverse range of climatic and pest situations to address than ever before, and trade is now truly global with new origins and products being continuously introduced, often with very short timescales. Evidence of failure of the current regime to respond to new challenges is the fact that it has not prevented some major new pests from entering the EU (e.g. Anoplophora sp., Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, PWN), in many cases largely due to the fact that new pathways that pose plant health risks have been discovered too late. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 381
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 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
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: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 413: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
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?