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)
conjunction with other tools (e.g. trade documents, electronic database for registration of
producers etc.).
Six MS have not implemented exemptions for ―small producers serving the local market” and
for ―products destined for final consumption‖ as they consider that these exemptions lead to a
potential phytosanitary risk, although they also recognise that in some cases, e.g. private final
consumers, it may be inefficient or ineffective to apply any type of measures. Those MS that
have implemented these exemptions, even if they recognise that the potential phytosanitary risk
can never be eliminated, generally consider this to be of minor importance. Generally these
exemptions have been implemented in parallel for simplification.
In conclusion, the evaluation has found that, by and large, the implementation of the current PP
system does not sufficiently take into account risk analysis nor does it provide sufficient
guarantees that products are safe to move within the EU. In many cases, the shortcomings
identified in the implementation of the current system have undermined the trust of both MS
CAs and stakeholders on some of the provisions, and it is therefore considered important to
restore overall credibility in the system. The above findings confirm that the situation with
respect to intra-Community trade remains as challenging as highlighted in the FVO Report of
2005 on this subject 138 . These concerns are particularly acute in the case of protected zones (PZs)
(see section 3.6) and call for a significant review of both systems.
The options for the future of the plant passport regime are explored further in section5.5.
3.6 Protected Zones (PZ) and regionalisation
This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the CPHR performance to date, taking
into consideration EQ 9 (area E) of the ToR.
EQ9: How is the current Protected Zones (PZ) regime implemented by MS, how effective
and useful is it and what are its critical success factors?
The issues examined under this section include the implementation by MS of the protected zone
(PZ) regime in the reference period (since 1993), the functioning of the protected zone plant
passport (―PZ‖ plant passport), as well as the needs for alternative forms of regionalisation.
Under the last heading, comparison is made with the Pest Free Area (PFA) principles as
described in ISPM 4, assessing the extent to which further alignment is required.
138 Overview report of the result of a series of missions carried out in MS in order to evaluate the implementation of
the Plant Passport System (2005). The FVO report concluded that “the implementation of the plant passport system
cannot be considered fully adequate or appropriate in the EU, especially with regard to plant health checks and
movement of regulated articles into protected zones". The text continues, from the executive summary: "this could
compromise the internal market control system for plant health and in particular for the protected zones". The
report also concluded that "in some areas (i.e. exemptions for local market, small producer, etc.) implementation
across the Community varied substantially. Contributing to the problems in many Member States is the insufficient
knowledge of the requirements of the plant passport system amongst inspectors and stakeholders".
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 126