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) The following table presents the evolution of the number of PZs per MS since 1992. A detailed overview of the current (2009) situation of PZs and HOs by MS covered by PZ status is presented in the Annex 1table (Theme 4). Table 3-13: Number of PZs per MS and evolution since 1992 MS No of PZs In 1992 In 2001 In 2008 To date Austria n.a. 1 1 1 Belgium 0 0 0 0 Bulgaria n.a. n.a. 0 0 Cyprus n.a. n.a. 3 3 Czech Republic n.a. n.a. 2 1 Denmark 3 1 0 0 Estonia n.a. n.a. 1 1 Finland n.a. 6 6 6 France 9 5 5 5 Germany 0 0 0 0 Greece 16 10 11 11 Hungary n.a. n.a. 0 0 Ireland 15 13 15 14 Italy 11 2 2 1 Latvia n.a. n.a. 2 2 Lithuania n.a. n.a. 1 1 Luxembourg 0 0 0 0 Malta n.a. n.a. 2 2 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 Poland n.a. n.a. 0 0 Portugal 12 8 8 8 Romania n.a. n.a. 0 0 Slovakia n.a. n.a. 2 2 Slovenia n.a. n.a. 2 2 Spain 11 7 5 5 Sweden n.a. 4 4 4 UK 15 15 16 16 Total PZs / Total MS 92/12 72/15 88/27 85/27 Source: Compiled by FCEC based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008, Commission Directive 2001/32/EC and Commission Directive 1992/76/EC, and based on the survey results for the column „To date‟. Overall, the number of PZs has decreased over the last 20 years despite the enlargement to 27 MS. When considering MS that were already members of the EU in 1992, the decrease is almost 30% (from 92 PZs in 1992 to 62 in 2009). Such a decrease can be partly explained by the fact that, at the start, if an area was free of a given HO, it was automatically defined as a PZ. Thereafter, increasing requirements in providing technical justification to prove freedom from the given HO/s, the difficulties MS had in keeping these zones free of certain HOs, and the lack of economic interest in some cases in maintaining some zones, led to PZs losing their status. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 128
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) To date, eight MS have never used the PZ concept on their territory, including 4 new MS: BE, BG, DE, HU, LU, NL, PL, RO. A majority of NMS established PZs on accession to the EU but the larger NMS have not established any PZ to date. At present, 11 MS have no PZ on their territory and, as the above table shows, more than two thirds of all PZs are located in only 6 MS: UK, IE, EL, PT, FI, and FR. The variation in rate of uptake of PZs is often seen as resulting from geographical reasons. For example IE and the UK use the concept quite widely, mainly due to their island status, while some landlocked MS (such as DE) have never used the possibility of protecting their territory via PZs. Different MS have adopted different approaches, with some defining PZs according to administrative/legal areas, while others have based them on detailed geographical descriptions using roads, etc. as boundaries (e.g. as in UK). Both approaches are justified in particular circumstances, although interviewees have noted that these boundaries can be quite artificial in the context of adopting effective plant health management measures. Figure 3-13: Evolution of the number of PZs in EU MS since 1992 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Belgium Denmark France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain UK 0 In 1992 In 2001 In 2008 To date Source: Compiled by FCEC based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008, Commission Directive 2001/32/EC and Commission Directive 1992/76/EC In terms of the evolution of the number of PZs over time, in all MS except UK, a decrease over this period can be observed. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 129
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:
Page 111 and 112: 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 161: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
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?