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)
Issuing PP document by operators 12 out of 26 (4 do not know) 11 out of 22 (10 do not know)
under NPPO supervision
Issuing of PP document by NPPO 13 out of 26 (4 do not know) 10 out of 23 (11 do not know)
General survey results
Q4.1.b Extent to which the plant health rules for intra-Community trade have been effective for ensuring the
free circulation in plants/plants products:
Provisions MS CA Stakeholders
Overall system 24 out of 24 17 out of 25 (7 do not know)
Plant passport document 22 out of 26 (3 do not know) 14 out of 23 (8 do not know)
Issuing PP document by operators 22 out of 25 (2 do not know) 12 out of 22 (9 do not know)
under NPPO supervision
Issuing of PP by NPPO 18 out of 25 (3 do not know) 10 out of 22 (11 do not know)
As a result, a significant number of MS CAs (17 out of 26, 2 do not know) do not consider the
plant passport system provides sufficient guarantee that plants and plant products are safe to
move within the EU. Stakeholders hold a more positive view (12 out of 26, 9 do not know
believe it provides a sufficient guarantee).
In 2005 the FVO produced an overview report on the implementation of the PP system in the
MS 130 . The present evaluation has identified a number of issues reported during the survey and
interviews/field visits, which confirm the earlier FVO findings. These relate to problems in
implementation and harmonization between MS, and can be summarized as follows:
Various problems arising from the diversity in PP formats and variation in information
provided and application, between and even within MS (more details in the following
section), which makes the tracing of relevant phytosanitary information particularly onerous;
The PP system does not cover all plants and plant products which could pose phytosanitary
risks and can be moved within the EU. Some HOs are only regulated on a limited number of
host plants – the limitation can be that the controls are only on plants moving to another
commercial grower or only where it is considered there is a greater risk (e.g. in the case of
Liriomyza trifolii). Significant gaps therefore exist in the system, due to the fact that not all
host plants are considered.
The number of species to be covered by the PP has been increasing over time. The initial list
that is inserted in Council Directive 2000/29/EC has been expanded by subsequent
Commission Directives. This approach and the lack of a consolidated document lead to
considerable difficulty in following up on what is the exact situation on species for which PP
obligations apply;
When registered holdings produce PP documents without following a standard format,
inspectors and producers receiving the material find it difficult to identify all the relevant
information.
130 FVO Report (2005) Overview report of the results of a series of missions carried out in Member States in order to
evaluate the implementation of the plant passport system. It covered the results of the missions carried out in 17 MS
(BE, EL, DE, DK, IT, SE, SK, UK, NL, PT, FR, SI, CZ, PL, HU, LV, ES).
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 115