2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

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