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) 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
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) According to Article 2(h) of Council Directive 2000/29/EC, a PZ in the EU is a country (or a territory within a country) where: One or more HOs, established in one or more parts of the Community, are not endemic or established despite favourable conditions for the HOs to establish; There is a danger that certain HOs will establish, given propitious ecological conditions, for particular crops, despite the fact that these organisms are not endemic or established in the Community. PZs are therefore intended to receive special protection against the introduction of one or more HOs listed in the Annexes of the base Directive. In this context, specific protection measures afforded to PZs include: An additional list of HOs whose introduction into and spread within PZs is to be prevented (listed in Annexes I B and II B); An additional list of plants and plant products whose introduction into PZs is prohibited (listed in Annex III B); An additional list of specific requirements which must be met by certain plants, plant products or other objects if they are to be moved to and within a PZ (listed in Annex IV B). Specific ―PZ‖ plant passports are required when moving plants and plant products into PZs, and such products must reach higher plant health standards before entering these zones. The recognition of PZ status is done through comitology procedure, where the Commission is assisted by the Standing Committee on Plant Health. MS submit a request for recognition of their territory or part thereof as a PZ, supported by the results of appropriate surveys. To maintain the status of a PZ, MS undertake to fulfil certain requirements, including systematic surveillance and reporting to the Commission (at least on an annual basis) to demonstrate continued absence of the HO, notification of any findings, and the obligation to eradicate measures over a maximum 2 year period in case of HO findings (leading to loss of status if eradication is not achieved). A more detailed description of the current rules relating to the EU system of protected zones (PZs) is provided in Annex 1 (Theme 4). 3.6.1 Implementation of Protected Zones in the EU The evolution and effectiveness of the PZ system, as it has been implemented by MS during the reference period is presented below. The list of recognized PZs is laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 (the ‗PZ‘ Regulation), which replaced a number of Directives. As noted in the Regulation, the approach was changed in 2008 from Directives to Regulations in order to achieve a timely and simultaneous application by MS as well as a reduction of administrative burden. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 127
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:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 131 and 132: Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 159: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?