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) A number of HOs appear to be of common interest and focus in a number of MS, suggesting that there are certain HOs for which a common EU approach needs to be followed to optimise response and cost-effectiveness; MS efforts are mainly targeted on HO for which Control Directives exist or for which emergency measures are in place. If greater prioritisation is needed, then this could be based on criteria to be developed, and the general survey has already pointed in the direction these could take. The scope for prioritisation is explored further in relation to options for the future to ensure better prevention and to maximise the cost-effectiveness of current measures and resources (in particular for import inspections and for intra-EU surveillance, sections 5.2 and 5.3 respectively). The process for considering additions to the lists in the Annexes is cumbersome and has created a backlog, and risk assessment and the risk management phases are considered to be ineffective in terms of the timeframe required. To overcome these constraints, consideration should be given to a number of improvements: ‗Fast-track‘ risk assessment while fuller PRAs are under way, with a view to speeding up the adoption of measures particularly in emergency situations; A greater degree of central coordination of PRAs conducted at different levels (MS, EFSA, EPPO, where possible also involving stakeholders); and, PRAs should be conducted, proactively 90 , i.e. when a HO is considered to represent a significant risk rather than when outbreaks occur. For this purpose more consideration and use of the EPPO Alert List is recommended by several MS. At a more general level, the major limitation of the current approach – as the results of the survey and the interviews reveal – is considered to be the lack of horizon scanning and the lack of efficiency in dealing with emerging risks (e.g. for major suspected threats such as Agrilus planipennis). The mechanisms in place and the speed of the process are considered inadequate in terms of response to the new threats that are emerging for plant health. These issues are explored further under the options for the future in sections 5.2 and 5.4 respectively. 90 Proactively produced PRAs could be used to develop EU contingency plans, coming into force automatically upon outbreaks, as in the Animal Health Regime. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 68
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 3.2.2 The positioning of Regulated Non Quarantine Pests (RNQPs) This section summarises our findings, taking into consideration EQ 5(i) (area B) of the ToR, on the appropriate positioning of RNQPs. Certain plant diseases that are not listed as quarantine pests may be subject to phytosanitary measures because their presence in plants and plants for planting results in economically unacceptable impacts associated with the intended use of those plants. Such pests are known as regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs) and their definition in IPPC 91 provides criteria to distinguish this category of regulated pests from regulated quarantine pests (RQPs): ―a non-quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing party‖. [Article 2 of IPPC 1997 Convention] A (regulated) quarantine pest (RQP) is defined by the IPPC as: “a (regulated) pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled”. A distinction is also made in the IPPC from non-regulated pests for which “contracting parties shall not require phytosanitary measures” (Article VI.2 of IPPC 1997 Convention). RQPs and RNQPs can be compared and classified on the basis of four criteria, as presented in ISPM No. 16. These are: pest status; pathway; economic impact; official control; and, tolerances. Table 3-3: Criteria for comparison of RQPs and RNQPs Defining criteria RQP RNQP Pest status Absent or of limited distribution Present and may be widely distributed Pathway Phytosanitary measures for any pathway Phytosanitary measures only on plants for planting Economic impact Impact is predicted Impact is known Official control Under official control if present with the aim of eradication or containment Under official control with respect to the specified plants for planting with the aim of suppression Tolerances Zero tolerance Appropriate tolerances (may be defined at zero) can be used to reduce the risk to an acceptable level Source: Compiled by the FCEC based on ISPM 16 RNQPs are mainly associated with plants for planting. Examples of such pests include for example HOs affecting the forestry sector, such as Phytophthora ramorum and Anoplophora 91 RNQPs were defined for the first time in the IPPC 1997 revision, followed by the publication of a standard in 2002, which is ISPM No. 16 ―RNQPs: concept and application‖. Subsequently, a second standard was developed in 2004 related to ―Pest risk analysis for RNQPs‖ (ISPM No. 21). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 69
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: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 53 and 54: 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 101: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 131 and 132: Source: FCEC based on general surve
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?