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) 1. An entire country; 2. An uninfested part of a country in which a limited infested area is present; 3. An uninfested part of a country situated within a generally infested area. In case a country loses the status of ―free from a specific pest‖, according to WTO rules (SPS agreement) it is not allowed to impose restrictions on consignments from third countries (quarantine), unless the same restrictions are imposed internally (the country and the Community). Particularly when exporting, recognition by the third countries of pest free areas is therefore important. Further to Article 6 of the WTO-SPS agreement 142 , in addition to the PFA concept, the IPPC has developed standards for the concept of ‗areas of low pest prevalence‘ (ALPP, ISPM 22 147 ). An ALPP is defined as an area in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures. In this case, the responsibilities of an NPPO include the protection of endangered areas and the designation, maintenance and surveillance of the ALPP. Although IPPC standards on establishing pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence already exist as described above (ISPM 4 and ISPM 22), there are no standards as yet for the recognition of pest-free areas. The ICPM had decided to urgently develop a concept standard in the "Guidelines for the recognition of the establishment of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence", that would provide general guidance on the recognition process but it would not provide timelines. The specifications of this concept standard were developed by the Standards Committee at its meeting in April 2005. The IPPC also undertook a feasibility study on the international recognition of pest-free areas, to take into account legal, technical and economic factors and assess the sustainability of such a system 148 . This was triggered by the fact that there have been many problems at WTO level with country complaints that their PFAs are not always accepted by their trading partners, despite specific and clear WTO-SPS provisions in this area (Article 6). The aim has been to follow a similar approach as in the animal health sector. The OIE has applied the concept to establish internationally recognised PFAs for four animal diseases and results are positive although trade barriers have apparently not been completely removed 149 . 3.6.3.2 The EU approach to regionalisation Protected Zones (PZs) are a form of regionalisation, which allows the EU and MS to apply quarantine measures for protection from certain HOs, by ensuring that products entering the PZ are free from these HOs and that there is effective surveillance and control within the PZ. The PZ area is therefore ‗protected‘ from introduction by stricter phytosanitary measures than adjoining areas. 147 ISPM No. 22: Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence (2005). 148 Report of the Open Ended Working Group to Undertake a Feasibility Study on the International Recognition of Pest Free Areas, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 14-18 July 2008. 149 Ralf Lopian: Feasibility of the international recognition of pest free areas. Discussion Paper for the ICPM Open- Ended-Working-Group, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 14-18 July 2008. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 134
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) The EU approach to regionalisation, primarily involving PZs, is not seen as adequate by a large majority of MS CAs responding to the general survey, on the grounds that it is extremely difficult to effectively implement the concept. General survey results Q5.5 Extent to which the EU approach for regionalisation, primarily involving PZs, is adequate 7 out of 24 MS CAs and 3 out of 18 stakeholders consider the EU approach for regionalization, primarily involving protected zones is adequate. (7 MS CAs* and 12 stakeholders do not know). * The large number of ‗do not know‘ in this case is due to divergence of opinion within the organisation A significant majority of respondents to the general survey are in favour of the EU PZ principle more closely reflecting the IPPC (PFA) concept (ISPM 4). However, it is also noted that there is significant confusion over the PZ and PFA concepts and that, strictly-speaking, the two concepts are not necessarily alternatives and they could apply in parallel. In particular, the PFA concept (section 3.6.3.1) is aimed at guaranteeing exports from the PFA for a specific HO (i.e. no need to fulfil requirements of importing countries when exporting from a PFA), whereas the PZ concept in mainly aimed at guaranteeing protection from a specific HO on imports from non PZ areas (i.e. need to fulfil requirements when importing into the area from other parts unless products are coming from a PFA). Beyond the above distinction in aim between the PFA and the PZ concepts, implementation is generally similar, in that both require extensive surveillance and have similar provisions in case of findings. In both cases, the status is maintained in case of finding, as long as the outbreak is ―under eradication‖ and supporting evidence justifies it. General survey results Q5.6 Extent to which the PZ principle should more closely reflect the Pest Free Area principle of ISPM No. 4 16 out of 24 MS CAs and 4 out of 20 stakeholders consider that the PZ principle should more closely reflect the PFA principle. (6 MS CAs and 15 stakeholders do not know) The following advantages of brining closer the EU‘s PZ principle with the IPPC PFA principle were listed by interviewees during the evaluation: More clarity and uniformity. The way PZ principles are applied today discriminates between PZs with outbreaks and non-PZs with low pest prevalence; In some cases, exports from the PZs, and the EU more generally, to third countries would be facilitated, as moving closer to an international standard would iron out current confusion in third country trading partners over the PZ concept, thus leading to greater acceptability of exports 150 ; There is a strong perception that the PFA approach is purely based on scientific evidence before considering and granting the status. 150 According to some interviewees, both within the EU and in the selected third countries, the terms protected zone and pest free area may cause confusion in importing countries, thus making it more burdensome for an EU exporter to explain the pest status of a product. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 135
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:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: 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 167: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
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?