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) 1.5.4 Data sources and reliability The cost analysis has been primarily based on the data provided by MS CAs and stakeholders during the specific cost survey, to which 25 MS CAs have responded. Data provided by EL have not been integrated in the cost model, as they concerned 4 Rural Development Directorates of the Prefectures (RDDPs) out of 57; and therefore did not provide a sufficient basis to extrapolate for the entire Greek territory. BG and LU did not respond. Questionnaires were completed by the CA of 10 Italian regions out of 20 and the German CA provided one questionnaire summarizing as far as possible the responses given by 14 Länder out of 16 (sometimes less for some specific aspects of the questionnaire). FCEC roughly extrapolated from these bases to obtain figures for IT and DE as a whole. A total of 9 questionnaires were completed by stakeholders, of which 4 provided quantified data useful for the cost analysis. Therefore, FCEC considers that the data provided by the MS CAs have provided a very solid basis for the cost analysis. Despite the scarcity of the data provided by stakeholders (also called ‗private operators‘ (POs) in the cost model), it has been possible to obtain some estimates of PO costs by extrapolating on the basis of: 1) data provided by the MS CAs on for instance the number of operators, the number of inspections at the place of production, the charged fees; and, 2) certain assumptions made by FCEC. As far as possible, FCEC has cross checked the quality of the provided data either by contacting the respondents by email or phone to obtain further explanation or by comparing data between sources and across the data provided. Finally, the cost model has been designed in such a way that the effect on costs of any change to the input data (e.g. number of entities concerned, time needed to carry out one specific task) is automatically generated, and this makes it possible to fine-tune the analysis with any additional data which becomes available. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 20
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 2 Reference model: the current CPHR The analysis below captures the main themes of the Reference Model required by section 2.2 of the ToR 22 . Reference to the Evaluation Questions (EQs) of the ToR is made where appropriate. The model describes the design and implementation of the current CPHR. The aim of the model is a clear understanding of the hierarchy of objectives, intervention logic and relationship between different stakeholders involved, the instruments used and the impacts generated, along the chain from producers to <strong>final</strong> consumers/users. It also serves to focus discussion on the proposed changes/options for the future and their likely impacts. 2.1 Legal basis The Community plant health acquis is based on Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (under Title III: Agriculture and Fisheries). It is also based on the IPPC and the WTO-SPS agreement, to which the EU is a contracting party. The evaluation, in particular, reviews Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 (hereafter referred to as ―the base Directive‖) on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community. The Directive is a codification of the original rules introduced in 1977 including all subsequent amendments, and constitutes the base legislation of the CPHR. 2.2 Evolution of the CPHR to date By far the most significant point in the evolution of the CHPR was the introduction of the Single Market in 1993, which resulted in a new strategy in the field of plant health. This aimed to strike a balance between opening the EU‘s internal borders (i.e. minimising internal border controls and restrictions) and sufficiently protecting the EU‘s territory from the introduction and spread of harmful organisms (HOs). To this end, a series of measures were introduced, which included: the establishment of common plant health standards for domestic and intra- Community trade; the transfer of checks from internal borders to places of production (and for third country producers to external Community frontiers) - this was effected via the issuing of ‗plant passports‘ for all movements within the EU (replacing phytosanitary certificates); 22 In addition to answering the evaluation questions, the ToR request the development of a reference model for describing the current Community plant health regime. This would cover: the legal basis; objectives (including scope and positioning concerning related regimes); responsibilities of the different parties involved (including aspects of subsidiarity and Community added value); intervention logic; key instruments used under the CPHR and how instruments are integrated (including monitoring systems and <strong>report</strong>ing structure); infrastructure (including official laboratories and science and methodological innovation (R&D)); management procedures and comitology; administrative issues (burden to stakeholders); and budget and Community financing. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 21
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 49 and 50: Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 53: 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 105 and 106:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?