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)
Currently, the general approach appears to be that if an organism is not allowed in to the EU, then
it is not present in the EU, but this may not in fact be the case. Under the current legislation, MS
cannot be obliged to carry out surveillance for HOs other than those covered by the PZ and
emergency and control measures: there is no Community financing and no means for the
Commission to require MS to put the resources into this. The lack of funding for this activity is in
the view of some MS a clear lack of incentive for applying any type of general surveillance.
In the forestry sector general surveillance (targeting the broader environmental and biodiversity
indicators, but also including certain phytosanitary aspects) was considered to have achieved a
fairly harmonised level across the EU, as it was regulated and financially supported up to
2006 105 ; however, there has been no further follow up, and now MS only receive support for
projects on an ad hoc basis. Although the surveillance aimed at identifying general problems on
the state of EU forests, nonetheless it provided a systematic record, as every 4-5 years MS were
supposed to provide detailed surveillance information and data. Although more general than the
surveillance required for monitoring plant health, if the programme had continued it would have
been useful also for this purpose. It appears that the networks created under this action continue
to exist, and there may be scope to explore any synergies that could be developed with the more
specific surveillance required in the context of the CPHR.
The effectiveness of phytosanitary measures greatly depends on the continuous exclusion of HOs
or, if an introduction has already occurred, on early identification and quick response in the
period between the introduction and the first notification of the presence of the organism. This is
one of the key elements for an effective strategy. The perceived variation in scope, contents and
methodology of the surveillance programmes in the MS suggest that there is significant scope for
more generalised and harmonised surveillance programmes across the EU, at least for priority
HOs. In order to effectively enforce this requirement on MS, potentially EU co-financing should
also be considered.
The need for global monitoring of the phytosanitary status in the EC territory was stated in the
2008 ―Council Conclusions of the Review of the EU Plant Health Regime‖ 106 . Given the limited
resources of NPPOs at MS level, two ways to achieve this objective were indicated:
Formalising plant health monitoring networks (with the inclusion of the stakeholders
concerned); and,
Formalised system of phytosanitary precautionary surveillance.
With regard to these two points, of particular interest would be the case of one MS (France),
where a process of organization of a surveillance system with substantial stakeholder
105 The action taken was the Forest focus (Council Regulation 2152/2003 and Commission Regulation 1733/2006) –
which was a joint action between the Commission (DG ENV) and the UNC ICP forest. It was a follow up of earlier
legislation and action managed by DG AGRI.
106 Council of the European Union. Review of the EU Plant Health Regime – Council conclusions. Press release
2906 th Economic and financial affairs/budget, 21 November 2008.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 81