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) Country Commodity (living plants) Number of interceptions with HOs Kenya Dominican Republic India China cut flowers and branches with foliage 289 fruit & vegetables 173 Total 536 fruit & vegetables 457 Total 457 fruit & vegetables 363 Total 447 fruit & vegetables 122 bonsai (intended for planting) 79 Total 290 Source: compiled by FCEC based on EUROPHYT The notification of interceptions in EUROPHYT is generally seen as an extremely useful tool by both MS CAs and stakeholders. The majority of MS CAs have indicated that the notification requirement has been effective in preventing the introduction of HOs into the Community, although this view is shared by only half the stakeholders who responded to the survey (Q 3.1.i): General survey results Q3.1.i Extent to which the notifications of interceptions in EUROPHYT have been effective in preventing the introduction of HOs into the Community: 23 out of 26 MS CAs and 8 out of 15 stakeholders consider that the notifications of interceptions in EUROPHYT have been effective (3 MS CAs and 7 stakeholders do not know). The evaluation identified mainly positive, but also some negative, findings on the usefulness and effectiveness of the EUROPHYT system. The key positive finding is that, for a large majority of interviewees, the EUROPHYT database contains valuable information to monitor new commodities that might pose a risk; it also draws attention to some countries, some type of consignments, and some companies that could pose higher phytosanitary risks than others. In most of the MS, the summary of all notifications that is prepared weekly by the FVO and published via CIRCA is being sent to border posts and to inspectors to be used as an alert system, so that inspectors can target their inspections for particular HOs, when new HOs have been notified in EUROPHYT. When MS have notified certain material, it helps other MS to further target and inspect those types of consignments. The main negative finding, on which it was generally pointed out that there is need for improvement, relates to the delays noted in some cases in introducing notifications into the system. Most of the MS CAs reported a delay of more than the mandatory two days in notifying in about 90% of the cases (Q 3.4.a and b). In certain cases, delays in EUROPHYT notifications are significant, up to 50 days. Generally the interception has to be analysed first, resulting in a report of analysis; only then can a notification be communicated to EUROPHYT. In this process, the collection of documentation may cause delays. Moreover, the final decision of the importer on the action taken on the consignment (destruction or return to origin) may cause additional delays. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 90
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) General survey results Q3.4 Average speed of notification (introduction into EUROPHYT) for findings at import: For regulated pests: 2 days 3 MS CA out of 28 2 days to 1 week 16 MS CA out of 28 > 1 week 7 MS CA out of 28 Do not know 2 MS CA out of 28 For non-listed HOs 2 days 0 MS CA out of 28 2 days to 1 week 11 MS CA out of 28 > 1 week 9 MS CA out of 28 Do not know 6 MS CA out of 28 Figure 3-11: Delays in notification versus number of interceptions (1993-2009) Source: Compiled by FCEC based on EUROPHYT data and FVO analysis The delays seem to have improved in terms of the time taken to notify. FVO reports that the average time taken to notify HO interceptions is estimated at about 40 days in 2009 compared to about 90 days in 2005. The legal obligation to notify within 2 days is however not met in any way. In conclusion, on the basis of how the EU notifications system has been implemented during the last 15 years, the advantages, added value and usefulness of the EUROPHYT system are largely acknowledged by both MS CAs and stakeholders. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 91
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:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 123: 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 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?