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)
would thus save time by focusing on notifying only relevant information. In the view of an
expert, the experience gained through RASFF would help in further developing the existing
system, for instance envisaging two types of alert reporting (alerts of new risks or high
risks/alerts of low risks or risks that occur regularly) with different reporting times.
It is also suggested that greater access to information should be provided to stakeholders. At
present there is considerable reliance on reports from the CAs to keep the industry up to date,
leading to significant delays in the communication of information that is crucial for early
warning and response by all parties, or even total communication failure in some cases. An
electronic notification system is also advocated by stakeholders.
3.3.4 Conclusions on performance of surveillance system
Surveillance is currently compulsory only in the case of emergency, control measures and
protected zones. The degree of application of the mandatory surveillance is variable by HOs, and
systematically undertaken only for the potato diseases. Procedures for surveys are not
harmonised at EU (with the exception of PWN) and there is request from several parts for a
greater harmonisation of protocols and reporting formats.
Notification of findings is not done within the legal requirements in the great majority of cases.
This has hindered the possibility for early action against HOs, and delayed communication of
information to CAs and stakeholders. There is agreement on the need to introduce a quicker
system for notification of findings and outbreaks, which could be developed within the current
EUROPHYT and serve for rapid communication, possibly to all parties involved (public and
private) and also as a database.
With regard to general surveillance, this is carried out by some MS for certain HOs, according to
national priorities and following different procedures and reporting standards. This affects the
extent to which comprehensive information on the spread of HOs on the EU territory is
available, thus leading to delayed transmission of information on HO findings, delayed response
to outbreaks, and less effective and efficient eradication measures. In this context, involvement
of private operators has been limited, despite the importance of stakeholder involvement in early
action. The view of the majority of those consulted during the evaluation is that an effective
system of surveillance needs to involve the full network of actors in this field.
There is general agreement about the importance and need of more and intensified surveillance,
and support for introduction of compulsory general surveillance at EU level for priority HOs,
although views on the process and criteria to be used for the identification and selection of HOs
to be subject to such surveillance, as well as the scope and method of the surveillance, are
diverging. The introduction of surveillance on a compulsory basis is associated with general
support for introduction of EU co-financing for this measure.
The options for the future of the EU surveillance system are explored further in section 5.3.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 84