|
Descripción
|
|
|---|---|
| As the European Commission (2006a) clearly details, there is a great diversity of policy options, risk management instruments and initiatives among Member States (MSs). During the past five years, a number of MSs (notably Austria, France, Greece, Italy and Spain) have given a serious impulse to policies aimed at providing farmers with a safety net. Others, including UK, Germany and The Netherlands, still rely on ad hoc relief and catastrophe compensation, and have reinforced farmers¿ training programs for coping with risks. This great diversity of measures results from at least three different factors: (1) the types of risks and hazards faced by MSs¿ farmers differ widely, (2) the extent to which farm holdings have been consolidated and restructured, and (3) the various policy/philosophical approaches of MS to help farmers to cope with risk. Animal health policy is perhaps the only area in which the EU has developed a common approach to reduce risks. Unlike other agricultural risks, contagious animal diseases have regional, market and even human health implications. One key strategy for the protection of European livestock and citizens is to intensify border controls and enforce traceability, animal identification and labeling (European Commission 2006b). While this recent evaluation indicates a number of strengths and positive views, there are areas which demand renewed efforts. In particular, the way in which ad hoc compensation schemes are co-funded by the EU and MS may create incentives for moral hazard both at farm and at MS level. As Mangen and Burrell (2003) show, the financial consequences for national farms on and off quarantine zones create winners and losers, depending on whether exports are banned and on the magnitude of the epidemic. Consumer welfare also depends on the severity of an outbreak and on its market implications. | |
|
Internacional
|
Si |
|
Entidad Informe
|
OECD |
|
Nacionalidad Entidad
|
FRANCIA |