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) that figures on resources invested in surveillance reveal that there is not a harmonized approach concerning the relative importance attached to surveillance. Table 3-5: Overview of reporting of mandatory surveillance results by MS HOs Year Number of reporting MS Emergency measures against Thrips palmi as regards n.a. n.a. Thailand Phytophthora ramorum 2004 23 2005 23 2006 23 2007 24 2008 26 Diabrotica virgifera 2005 21 MS out of 22 concerned 1 MS did not notify the EC of the results. 1 MS did not carry out the survey for 2nd consecutive year. 2006 20 MS out of 23 concerned 4 MS did not notify the EC of the results. Pepino mosaic virus 2007 24 2008 25 Pinewood nematode 2005 20 2008 26 Dryocosmus kuriphilus 2008 Public gardens: 19 out of 23 concerned Nurseries: 15 out of 19 concerned Orchards: 7 out of 12 concerned Rhynchophorus ferrugineus 2007 21 2008 22 Potato spindle tuber viroid 2007 24 MS reporting, of which 20 carried out survey Gibberella circinata 2008 Nurseries: 22 Demarcated forest sites: 12 out of 17 Forest including parks, gardens etc: 22 Anoplophora chinensis (Forster) 2008 17 Emergency measures for import Emergency measures against Pseudomonas solanacearum n.a. n.a. (Smith) as regards Egypt Emergency measures in respect of certain citrus fruits 2006 21 out of 25 concerned originating in Argentina or Brazil Community control measures Community control measures for potato wart disease n.a. n.a. Community control measures for potato cyst eelworm n.a. n.a. Control of carnation leaf-rollers n.a. n.a. Source: Annual reports on mandatory surveys‟ results, compiled by DG SANCO – F.4 In addition the number of MS reporting on the surveillance carried out in connection with the Community control measures on potato brown rot and ring rot are provided below. Surveillance reporting in the context of these two measures is the most thorough in the EU (in terms of consistency from year to year and MS coverage, as well as reporting contents). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 78
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Table 3-6: Overview of reporting of mandatory surveillance for potato diseases Community control measures for potato ring rot Number of reporting MS, 1994-2008 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 12 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 24 24 23 25 27 27 Number of reporting MS, 1995-2008 Community control measures for potato brown rot 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 12 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 24 24 24 25 27 27 Source: Annual reports on mandatory surveys‟ results, compiled by DG SANCO – F.4 With regard to the obligation of notification to the Commission of the survey results, the general survey has addressed the question of reporting delays, with the majority of MS indicating they report within the legal deadline, but nearly a third of MS indicating they exceed the legal limit. Most of the interviewees commented that the timing for reporting is often seen as too short. According to MS CAs, the deadlines that have been defined in the legislation do not allow all them to gather all the required information in the given period of time and especially in MS with decentralized administration, where information has to be collected from the different regions and compiled by the NPPO before submission to the FVO. General survey results Q2.5.a Extent to which MS have established surveillance/monitoring programmes required by EU legislation Surveillance and monitoring programmes required by EU legislation (for PZs and in relation to Community emergency measures) are implemented fully by the majority of MS (22 out of 24 CAs) and partly by 2 MS. Q2.5.a Speed of reporting survey results to DG SANCO The majority of MS CAs (17 out of 25) report results within the legal deadline, whereas 7 report within 1 month after legal deadline and one MS reports more than one month after the deadline. Furthermore, the general survey and the interviews identified several issues linked to the implementation of these mandatory surveillances plans as follows: Although it is recognized that surveillance measures for HOs covered under Control Directives are harmonised (e.g. Control Directives on potatoes), several reported examples show a lack of uniformity in the implementation of surveys. In case of emergency measures, no protocol on how to set-up a survey for a given HO is given. It is up to MS to define and implement the measures and this results in variable and different protocols. For example, in the case of Diabrotica it has been observed that the trapping density is very different across MS 104 . In the case of surveillance for potato measures, there are differences in the sampling method and the results are highly dependent on sampling. A large majority of interviewees consider that more guidance is needed on this; the EU survey protocol for PWN is indicated as an example given to MS on what surveillance plans are needed and how these should be drafted. EU wide protocols should be defined whenever possible; 104 DIABR-ACT Action Plan Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 79
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:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 63 and 64: Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 111: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 131 and 132: Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
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?