08.11.2014 Views

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report<br />

DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)<br />

limited number of HOs than the full list (in total, the 27 MS are prioritising on 86 HOs, not all of<br />

which are listed in the Directive). Responses indicated that currently less than 40 HOs are a<br />

priority for more than 1 MS, and 20 of these HOs are a priority for more than 5 MS. These<br />

priority HOs appear to occupy most of the staff time at MS plant health services. Similarly, it<br />

appears that 20-30 HOs are taking most of the time of SANCO plant health services.<br />

Table 3-2: Top 20 HOs most indicated by MS CAs „to focus on as a matter of priority‟<br />

HO<br />

Number of MS<br />

1 Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus 23<br />

2 Anoplophora 20<br />

Anoplophora chinensis 9<br />

Anoplophora glabripennis 5<br />

Anoplophora spp. 6<br />

3 Globodera 20<br />

Globodera pallida 6<br />

Globodera rostochiensis 4<br />

Globodera spp. 10<br />

4 Erwinia amylovora 19<br />

5 Ralstonia solanacearum 17<br />

6 Diabrotica virgifera virgifera 16<br />

7 Bursaphelenchus xylophilus 15<br />

8 Plum pox virus 13<br />

9 Potato spindle tuber viroid 11<br />

10 Phytophthora 10<br />

Phytophthora ramorum 7<br />

11 Bemisia tabaci 9<br />

12 Synchytrium endobioticum 8<br />

13 Grapevine flavescence 6<br />

14 Liriomyza spp. 6<br />

15 Pepino mosaic virus 5<br />

16 Meloidogyne 5<br />

17 Monilinia fructicola 5<br />

18 Thrips palmi 5<br />

19 Tomato spotted wilt virus 5<br />

20 Xanthomonas 5<br />

Note: Based on Q2.2 of general survey. Only those HOs mentioned by >5 MS are indiacted.<br />

Source: FCEC based on general survey results<br />

These results should not be read to suggest that MS CAs or SANCO ‗limit‘ themselves to a finite<br />

number of HOs, nor that the current focus currently reflects optimal cost-effectiveness (i.e. that<br />

MS are necessarily focussing on the HOs that provide the best cost-benefit ratio). They simply<br />

indicate that, as it currently stands:<br />

The resources of MS NPPOs are mostly used on a relatively narrower range of HOs than<br />

the full lists of the base Directive (and this may well reflect national or regional priorities);<br />

Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 67

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!