DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the INTERREG V-A Latvia Lithuania Programme 2014- 2020 and Its

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the INTERREG V-A Latvia Lithuania Programme 2014- 2020 and Its Evaluation of the INTERREG V-A Latvia Lithuania Programme 2014- 2020 and its Communication strategy 1 Report by SAFEGE Baltija Contents Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Pictures .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 7 1. How balanced is territorial coverage? ................................................................................................. 12 1.1. Territorial distribution of projects and project partners ..................................................... 12 1.2. Main bottlenecks and drivers for the involvement of newcomers .................................. 16 1.3. Main conclusions and areas for action ......................................................................................... 17 2. What results does the Programme plan to achieve .............................................................................. 20 2.1. What is the planned contribution of the approved projects toward achievement of the result indicators and output indicators? ...................................................................................................... 22 2020 and its Communication strategy Communication its and 2020 - 2.2. How much the projects have committed under each specific objective per each Programme region? ............................................................................................................................................... 27 2.3. What are the main factors that influence the commitment? ....................................................... 31 2.4. What is the state of play of the current achievement of outputs in projects? ...................... 34 2.5. What is the possible impact of existing commitment on the achievement of Programme result indicators and their target values? .................................................................................................... 35 Top of 2.6. What is the potential impact of additional ERDF funding in 2018 on the target values of the result indicators? .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Docume nt 2.7. Main conclusions and areas for improvement ................................................................................... 38 A Latvia Lithuania Programme 2014 Programme Lithuania A Latvia - 3. Wider contribution to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and horizontal principles39 3.1. How does the Programme contribute toward delivery of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and horizontal principles? ........................................................................................................... 39 3.2. Main conclusions and areas for action ......................................................................................... 41 4. Planning for Programme impact evaluation in 2020 .......................................................................... 43 4.1. Evaluation focus and goals ......................................................................................................................... 43 4.2. Evaluation context and potential evaluation questions ................................................................ 44 Evaluation of the INTERREG V the INTERREG of Evaluation 4.3. Availability and validity of data ................................................................................................................ 45 4.4. Main conclusions and areas for action ......................................................................................... 46 5. Has Programme implementation become more efficient? ................................................................ 47 5.1. Which simplification measures should be preserved? ................................................................... 47 5.2. Did simplification measures decrease administrative burden? ................................................. 50 5.3. Main conclusions and areas for action .................................................................................................. 51 6. How well the Programme has ensured communication? ............................................................ 52 6.1. Communication with project applicants and project partners ................................................... 52 2 6.2. Communication with wider public................................................................................................. 56 6.3. Main conclusions and areas for action ......................................................................................... 58 Annex 1 Recommendations for further improvement ............................................................................ 60 Annex 2 Territorial coverage of the projects by Programme’s priorities ....................................... 65 Annex 3 Calculation of Programme result indicators .............................................................................. 70 Annex 4 Potential impact of output commitments to the achievement of Programme result indicators .................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Annex 5 Programme projects per EUSBSR objectives and policy areas .......................................... 75 Annex 6 Connections between the Programme Specific Objectives and the EUSBSR Objectives and Policy Areas ...................................................................................................................................................... 76 Annex 7 Good practice projects ........................................................................................................................ 77 Annex 8 Simplification measures for applicants and project partners introduced within the Programme (2014 – 2020) ................................................................................................................................. 91 Annex 9 Logical model of Specific Objectives ............................................................................................. 92 Annex 10 Outcome Harvesting ........................................................................................................................ 100 2020 and its Communication strategy Communication its and 2020 Annex 11 Results of the survey ....................................................................................................................... 102 - Annex 12 Information on communication activities ............................................................................. 107 2014 Annex 11 Questions of the interview with Programme bodies ........................................................ 110 Annex 13 Questions of the interview with project partners .............................................................. 112 Annex 14 List of Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 115 Annex 15 Evaluation Methods ......................................................................................................................... 118 Annex 16 Description of Criteria of Evaluation rubrics ....................................................................... 123 A Latvia Lithuania Programme Programme Lithuania A Latvia - Tables Table # 1 Division of programme funds and number of approved project applications per priorities and Calls for proposals, June 2019 ..................................................................................................... 7 Table # 2 Commitment of Programme regions to the total values of output indicators Source: eMS, project applications, 10th April, 2019 ...................................................................................................... 29 Table # 3 Number of projects from the region contributing to the output indicators .................. 30 Evaluation of the INTERREG V the INTERREG of Evaluation Table # 4 Current state of play of the commitment and achievement of output indicators within projects ............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Table # 5 Baseline and target values of result indicators .......................................................................... 35 Table # 6 Potential impact on the achievement of Programme result indicators........................... 37 Table # 7 Improvement to facilitate a wider contribution to the EUSBSR and horizontal principles ........................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table # 8 Potential focus of the upcoming evaluation ................................................................................ 44 Table # 9 Potential evaluation questions ......................................................................................................... 44 3 Table # 10 Necessary data,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ministero Della Salute Direzione Generale Per L'igiene E La Sicurezza Degli Alimenti E La Nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma
    arsl_ge.alisa.REGISTRO UFFICIALE.I.0012225.25-06-2018 0026792-25/06/2018-DGISAN-MDS-P Trasmissione elettronica N. prot. DGISAN in Docsa/PEC Ministero della Salute Direzione generale per l'igiene e la sicurezza degli alimenti e la nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma ASSESSORATI ALLA SANITA’ REGIONI E PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO SERVIZI VETERINARI LORO SEDI ASSESSORATO ALL’AGRICOLTURA PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI BOLZANO SEDE E p.c. ASSICA Pec: [email protected] UNICEB [email protected] [email protected] ASSOCARNI [email protected] FEDERCARNI [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO SAN DANIELE [email protected] CARPEGNA PROSCIUTTI S.p.A. [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI MODENA [email protected] C.I.A. organizzazione @cia.it CNA [email protected] UNIONALIMENTARI [email protected] A.I.I.P.A. [email protected] CIM –CONSORZIO ITALIANO MACELLATORI Pec: [email protected] DGSAF Ufficio 1 SEDE OGETTO: Aggiornamenti sull’esportazioni di carne fresca suina, prodotti a base di carne suina e prodotti finiti contenti suino dall’ Italia verso la Federazione russa. Si fa seguito alle lettere di questo ufficio n° prot. 15196 del 12 aprile 2018 e N° prot. 10609 del 19 marzo 2018 concernenti l’oggetto per fornire ulteriori aggiornamenti giunti dalla Parte russa con le ultime linee guida Versione del 14/6/2018 e pervenuti per il tramite della Commissione europea, al fine di consentire una esatta compilazione della certificazione veterinaria che deve accompagnare le carni ed i prodotti del settore suino che sono esportati dall’Italia verso la Federazione Russa.
    [Show full text]
  • Socioeconomic Impact of Mussel Farming in Coastal Areas of Baltic Sea
    Socioeconomic Impact of Mussel Farming in Coastal Areas of Baltic Sea Zaiga Ozolina, Ligita Kokaine Kurzeme planning region Published: 2019-04-10 www.balticbluegrowth.eu 1 Socioeconomic Impact of Mussel Farming in Coastal Areas of Baltic Sea About Baltic Blue Growth is a three-year project financed by the European Regional Development Fund. The objective of the project is to remove nutrients from the Baltic Sea by farming and harvesting blue mussels. The farmed mussels will be used for the production of mussel meal, to be used in the feed industry. 18 partners from 7 countries are participating, with representatives from regional and national authorities, research institutions and private companies. The project is coordinated by Region Östergötland (Sweden) and has a total budget of 4,7 M€. Partners - Region Östergötland (SE) - County Administrative Board of Kalmar County (SE) - East regional Aquaculture Centre VCO (SE) - Kalmar municipality (SE) - Kurzeme Planning Region (LV) - Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology (LV) - Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (PL) - Ministry of Energy, Agriculture, Environment, Nature and Digitalization of Schleswig- Holstein (DE) - Municipality of Borgholm (DK) - SUBMARINER Network for Blue Growth EEIG (DE) - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE) - County Administrative Board of Östergötland (SE) - University of Tartu Tartu (EE) - Coastal Research and Management (DE) - Orbicon Ltd. (DK) - Musholm Inc (DK) - Coastal Union Germany EUCC ( DE) - RISE Research institutes of Sweden (SE) This document was produced as an outcome of the Baltic Blue Growth project, WP3, GoA5.4 It was published online at the project’s website www.balticbluegrowth.eu and distributed as an electronic copy to project partners and stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • GI Case Analysis Coastal Areas
    TASK 4.1: IN-DEPTH CASE ANALYSIS – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENCY – ENV.B.2./SER/2010/0059 PROJECT TEAM: IEEP, ECOLOGIC, GHK, SYZYGY, TAU, UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP, VITO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN-DEPTH CASE ANALYSIS THEME 3: MULTIFUNCTIONAL USE OF COASTAL AREAS Author: Marcelline Bonneau (GHK), [email protected], +32 2 2750123 1 Introduction The coast is the area where the land meets the sea and more particularly the “air-sea-land interface zone around continents and islands” (Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd and University of Strathclyde 2000). As such, it has a total length of 89,000 km in the EU. In addition, half the population of the Member States which have a coastline live within 50 km of the sea (European Commission, 2000). Coasts are defined by their richness in biodiversity elements (see,for example, European Environment Agency, 2002, and the INTERREG IIIC Deduce project). In particular, eight out of the 40 EU-listed priority habitats of wild fauna and flora fall into the coastal habitat. Also, a third of the EU's wetlands are located on the coast as well as more than 30% of the Special Protected Areas designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). In addition, the reproduction and nursery grounds of most fish and shellfish species of economic value also lie in coastal areas and account for almost half of the jobs in the fisheries sector (European Commission, 1997). At the same time, coasts play an important role in the development of local and regional economies. A study carried out by the University of the Aegean (2001), showed that the most important sectors in economic terms in the coastal zones were mostly tourism and leisure, agriculture and food, sea fisheries, ports and shipping, and residential housing.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection and Management of Coastal Habitats in Latvia”
    LIFE–Nature projekts “PIEKRASTES BIOTOPU AIZSARDZÈBA UN APSAIMNIEKOÍANA LATVIJÅ” LIFE–Nature project “PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL HABITATS IN LATVIA” Projekta pårskats Layman’s Report LIFE02 NAT/LV/008498 LIFE02 NAT/LV/008498 2002. – 2006. gads Year 2002–2006 Latvijas Universitåtes Biolo©ijas fakultåte Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia Teksta autori Vija Znotiña, Brigita Laime, Rita Birziña, Kårlis Kalvißkis, Marita Nikmane, Ineta Plikßa, Mårtiñß Pétersons, Didzis Tjarve Ang¬u valodas redakcija Inguna Jansone Zîméjumi Gundega Gulbe Korektore Anitra Pårupe Fotoattélu autori Latvija Andris Soms, Rita Birziña, Ineta Plikßa, Marita Nikmane, Roberts Bérziñß, Brigita Laime, Valdis Krastiñß, Didzis Tjarve, Vija Znotiña, Dina Dombrovska, Iréna Berga, Valda Baroniña, Juris Prikulis Kartes veidojis Kårlis Kalvißkis Maketéjußi Artürs Gailis, Verners Ívarcs Iespiests tipogråfijå McÅbols Izdevums sagatavots projekta “Piekrastes biotopu aizsardzîba un apsaimniekoßana Latvijå” ietvaros © Latvijas Universitåte, 2006 ISBN 9984–802–00–0 AinaΩi Carnikava Jürmala LapmeΩciems Påvilosta Rîga Medzes pagasta padome Roja Rucava Salacgrîva Saulkrasti Projekta mér˚is, teritorija un galvenie pasåkumi Background information on the project Eiropas Komisijas atbalstîtais LIFE–Nature projekts LIFE–Nature project “Protection and management of “Piekrastes biotopu aizsardzîba un apsaimniekoßana coastal habitats in Latvia” (The Coastal Project) lasted Latvijå” (Piekrastes projekts) ilga no 2002. lîdz from 2002 to 2006. Project beneficiary: Faculty of 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Saeima Ir Pieņēmusi Un Valsts
    The Saeima1 has adopted and the President has proclaimed the following Law: Law On Administrative Territories and Populated Areas Chapter I General Provisions Section 1. Administrative Territory An administrative territory is a territorial divisional unit of Latvia, in which the local government performs administration within the competence thereof. Section 2. Populated Area A populated area is a territory inhabited by people, the material pre-conditions have been established for residence therein and to which the relevant status of populated area has been granted according to the procedures specified by regulatory enactments. Section 3. Scope of Application of this Law (1) The Law prescribes the conditions for the creation, registration, modification of boundaries and establishing of the administrative centre of administrative territories and the territorial divisional units of a municipality, and the definition of the status of a populated area, the procedures for registration thereof and the competence of institutions in these matters. (2) The activities of State administrative institutions in administrative territories shall be regulated by other regulatory enactments. Chapter II Administrative Territories Section 4. Administrative Territories The Republic of Latvia shall be divided into the following administrative territories: 1) regions; 2) cities; and, 3) municipalities. Section 5. Region (1) The territorially amalgamated administrative territories of local governments shall be included in a region. (2) The municipalities and cities to be included in a region, as well as the administrative centre of the region shall be determined by the Saeima. 1 The Parliament of the Republic of Latvia Translation © 2010 Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre) (3) When creating or eliminating a region, establishing the administrative centre of a region, and modifying the boundaries of a region, the interests of the inhabitants of the State and local government, the Cabinet opinion and the decisions of interested local governments shall be evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Conditions and Risks in Latvia 2012-2013
    WORKWORK CONDITIONSCONDITIONS ANDAND RISKSRISKS ININ LATVIALATVIA 2012-2013 INVESTMENT IN YOUR FUTURE INVESTMENT IN YOUR FUTURE! WORK CONDITIONS AND RISKS IN LATVIA, 2012–2013 The Study “Working conditions and risks in Latvia 2012-2013” was carried out within the project “Practical application of the legislation regarding labour relations and occupational safety in sectors and companies” (No. 1DP/1.3.1.3.2./08/IPIA/NVA/002) with financial support of the European Social Fund of the European Union and the state of Latvia. Responsibility for the content of the research shall be borne by the Employers’ Confederation of Latvia, “TNS Latvia Ltd.” and Institute for Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Rīga Stradiņš University (RSU DDVVI). Riga, 2013 SIA «TNS Latvia» & RSU DDVVI kroW snoitidnoc dna sksir ni ,aivtaL 3102–2102 RESEARCH GROUP The Study “Work conditions and risks in Latvia” within the project “Practical application of the legislation regarding labour relations and Occupational safety in sectors and companies” (No. 1DP/1.3.1.3.2./08/IPIA/NVA/002) with financial support of the European Social Fund of the European Union and the state of Latvia was carried out by a research group composed of the experts from “TNS Latvia Ltd.” and Institute for Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Rīga Stradiņš University. Following specialists contributed to the Study: Ivars Vanadziņš, Žanna Martinsone, Svetlana Lakiša, Jeļena Reste, Mairita Grāvele, Mārīte Ārija Baķe, Dagmāra Sprūdža, Inese Mārtiņsone and Maija Eglīte. Quantitative surveys of employers, employees and general public, as well as analysis of focus groups were carried out by “TNS Latvia Ltd.” under the leadership of project director Signe Kaņējeva.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Competition and Development in Latvia's Municipalities
    Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference “ECONOMIC SCIENCE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT” No38 Jelgava, LLU ESAF, 23-24 April 2015, pp. 24-30 POLITICAL COMPETITION AND DEVELOPMENT IN LATVIA’S MUNICIPALITIES Janis Ikstens1, Dr.sc.pol. / professor 1 University of Latvia Abstract: A broad strand of research demonstrates a beneficial role of political competition producing more efficient policies and fostering economic development. This paper explores the linkage between political competition and economic development of municipalities in Latvia after the 2009 administrative reform. Empirical data do not support the above claim of the positive role of political competition and rather demonstrate an adverse linkage between political competition and development. Keywords: political competition, economic development, municipal politics, Latvia JEL code: A12, H11, O43, P16 Introduction One of the basic propositions in economics claims that competition drives economic efficiency and development. Oligopolistic or monopolistic markets tend to increase prices and reduce the quality of goods or services. This line of reasoning is not limited to economics only. Scholars of politics have pointed out that political competition may have various effects on results of the political decision making in that citizens function in politics as consumers do in the markets and politicians have incentives to act in the interest of a plurality/majority so as to avoid their removal from office. Besley, Persson and Sturm (2010) find that lower political competition leads to higher taxes and lower capital spending. Stigler (1972), Wittman (1995), and Besley, Persson and Sturm (2005) indicate that weak political competition can cause inefficient provision of public services. Falkowski and Olper (2014) highlight that fiercer political competition leads to a higher level of agricultural support.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection and Management of Coastal Habitats in Latvia
    LIFE02 NAT/LV/008498 FINAL REPORT Covering the period from 01.04.2002 to 30.06.2006 Date of the report: 11.10.2006 PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL HABITATS IN LATVIA Project Project location Latvia, entire seacoast – appr. 500 km long and 300 m wide strip including 4 Natura 2000 sites Project start date: 01.04.2002 Project end date: 30.06.2006 Total Project duration 51 months (in months) Total budget 1 666 151.60 € EC contribution: 1249613.70 € (%) of total costs 75 % (%) of eligible costs 75 % Beneficiary Beneficiary Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia Contact person Mrs Vija Znotiņa Address Kronvalda bulv.4, Rīga, LV 1010, LATVIA Telephone +371-7034875 Fax: +371-7034874 E-mail [email protected] Project Website http://piekraste.daba.lv Report compiled by: Vija Znotiņa, Brigita Laime, Didzis Tjarve, Rita Birziņa, Kārlis Kalviškis, Ineta Plikša, Marita Nikmane LIFE02 NAT/LV/008498 FINAL REPORT CONTENTS 1. KEYWORDS ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................4 3. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................6 4. LIFE PROJECT FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Governance and Communication for Sustainable Coastal Development
    GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNICATION FOR SUSTAINABLE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT Raimonds Ernšteins (Ed) Department of Environmental Management Faculty of Economics and Management University of Latvia Rīga 2011 Governance and Communication for Sustainable Coastal Development Effective environmental communication, including awareness raising, education and outreach, is essential for promoting sustainable development. The sustainable future lies with our ability to educate children and adults to take responsibility for the common environment. The educational programs designed for environmental communication are a critical component in supporting the learning processes needed for sustainable living as known today and for finding the ways needed for tomorrow’s actions. The project Cobweb is creating from this need. It focuses in creating models for cross-border cooperation where the key actors, such as universities, museums and nature and environmental schools, are together building environmental educational programs. Programs which are based on the latest knowledge of environmental and sustainability issues and effective environmental communication but also touching to people’s feelings and senses. Cobweb combines the scientific approach with concrete awareness raising activity and methodology approach to a joint educational material building process with concrete outputs. The COBWEB is co-financed by the European Union Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013 ”. The contents of this publication represent the views of the publishers. The authorities are not responsible for the contents of this project. Rainonds Ernšteins, Jāni Kauli Ħš, Ivars Kudre Ħickis, Sintija Kuršinska, Ilga Z īlniece, Valdis Antons, Di āna Šulga, El īna L īce, Alda Ozola, Aigars Št āls, Ērika Lagzdi Ħa, Matika Rudz īte, M āra Lub ūze, Normunds Kadi ėis.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministero Della Salute Direzione Generale Per L'igiene E La Sicurezza Degli Alimenti E La Nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma
    0034244-04/09/2018-DGISAN-MDS-P Trasmissione elettronica N. prot. DGISAN in Docsa/PEC Ministero della Salute Direzione generale per l'igiene e la sicurezza degli alimenti e la nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma ASSESSORATI ALLA SANITA’ REGIONI E PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO SERVIZI VETERINARI LORO SEDI ASSESSORATO ALL’AGRICOLTURA PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI BOLZANO SEDE E p.c. ASSICA Pec: [email protected] UNICEB [email protected] [email protected] ASSOCARNI [email protected] FEDERCARNI [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO SAN DANIELE [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI MODENA [email protected] C.I.A. organizzazione @cia.it CNA [email protected] UNIONALIMENTARI [email protected] A.I.I.P.A. [email protected] UNAITALIA [email protected] CIM –CONSORZIO ITALIANO MACELLATORI Pec: [email protected] DGSAF -Ufficio 1 SEDE OGGETTO: Aggiornamenti sull’esportazioni di carne fresca suina, prodotti a base di carne suina e prodotti finiti contenti suino dall’ Italia verso la Federazione russa. Si fa seguito alle lettere di questo ufficio prot. n° 26792 del 25 giugno 2018 e prot. n° 15196 del 12 aprile 2018 concernenti l’oggetto, per fornire ulteriori aggiornamenti, giunti dalla Parte russa con le ultime linee guida Versione del 20/8/2018 e pervenuti per il tramite della Commissione europea, al fine di consentire una esatta compilazione
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Science for Rural Development
    ECONOMIC SCIENCE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT Integrated and Sustainable Regional Development № 38 Jelgava 2015 ISSN 1691-3078 ISSN 2255-9930 on line ISBN 978-9984-48-181-4 Abstracted / Indexed: ISI Web of Science, AGRIS, CAB Abstracts and EBSCOHost Academic Search Complete databases http://www.esaf.llu.lv/journals-and-proceedings www.fao.org/agris/ http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?authtype=ip,uid&profile=ehost&defaultdb=lbh http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&jid=25AP&site=ehost-live 2 The Conference Committee Professor Baiba Rivza Latvia University of Agriculture /Latvia/ Professor Andra Zvirbule-Berzina Latvia University of Agriculture /Latvia/ Professor Irina Pilvere Latvia University of Agriculture /Latvia/ Professor Barbara Freytag-Leyer FuldaUniversity of Applied Sciences /Germany/ Professor Bo Öhlmer Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences /Sweden/ Professor Bartosz Mickiewicz West Pomeranian University of Technology /Poland/ Professor Maria Parlinska Warsaw University of Life Sciences /Poland/ Professor Alina Danilowska Warsaw University of Life Sciences /Poland/ Professor Janina Sawicka Warsaw University of Life Sciences /Poland/ Professor Joanna Szwacka-Mokrzycka Warsaw University of Life Sciences /Poland/ Professor ArildSæther UniversityofAgder/Norway/ Professor Vilija Alekneviciene Aleksandras StulginskisUniversity /Lithuania/ Professor Csaba Forgacs Budapest Corvinus University /Hungary/ Senior Researcher Magnar Forbord Centre for Rural Research /Norway/ Professor Ingrida Jakusonoka Latvia University
    [Show full text]
  • Ministero Della Salute Direzione Generale Per L'igiene E La Sicurezza Degli Alimenti E La Nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma
    arsl_ge.alisa.REGISTRO UFFICIALE.I.0017082.04-09-2018 0034244-04/09/2018-DGISAN-MDS-P Trasmissione elettronica N. prot. DGISAN in Docsa/PEC Ministero della Salute Direzione generale per l'igiene e la sicurezza degli alimenti e la nutrizione Ufficio 2 Via Giorgio Ribotta 5- 00144Roma ASSESSORATI ALLA SANITA’ REGIONI E PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO SERVIZI VETERINARI LORO SEDI ASSESSORATO ALL’AGRICOLTURA PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI BOLZANO SEDE E p.c. ASSICA Pec: [email protected] UNICEB [email protected] [email protected] ASSOCARNI [email protected] FEDERCARNI [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI PARMA [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO SAN DANIELE [email protected] CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI MODENA [email protected] C.I.A. organizzazione @cia.it CNA [email protected] UNIONALIMENTARI [email protected] A.I.I.P.A. [email protected] UNAITALIA [email protected] CIM –CONSORZIO ITALIANO MACELLATORI Pec: [email protected] DGSAF -Ufficio 1 SEDE OGGETTO: Aggiornamenti sull’esportazioni di carne fresca suina, prodotti a base di carne suina e prodotti finiti contenti suino dall’ Italia verso la Federazione russa. Si fa seguito alle lettere di questo ufficio prot. n° 26792 del 25 giugno 2018 e prot. n° 15196 del 12 aprile 2018 concernenti l’oggetto, per fornire ulteriori aggiornamenti, giunti dalla Parte russa con le ultime linee guida Versione del 20/8/2018 e pervenuti per il tramite della Commissione europea, al fine di consentire una esatta compilazione della certificazione veterinaria che deve accompagnare le carni ed i prodotti del settore suino che sono esportati dall’Italia verso la Federazione Russa.
    [Show full text]