2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of emergency measures (Commission Decisions): Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) HOs Emergency measure 1 Thrips palmi as regards Thailand Commission Decision 98/109/EC 2 Phytophthora ramorum Commission Decision 2002/757/EC 3 Diabrotica virgifera* Commission Decision 2003/766/EC 4 Pepino mosaic virus Commission Decision 2004/200/EC 5 Pinewood nematode (PWN) Commission Decision 2006/133/EC as last amended by Decision 2009/420/EC 6 Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu Commission Decision 2006/464/EC 7 Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Commission Decision 2007/365/EC 8 Potato spindle tuber viroid Commission Decision 2007/410/EC 9 Gibberella circinata Commission Decision 2007/433/EC 10 Anoplophora chinensis Commission Decision 2008/840/EC 11 Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith as regards Commission Decision 2004/4/EC imports from Egypt 12 Certain citrus fruits originating in Argentina or Brazil Commission Decision 2004/416/EC * In addition, for Diabrotica virgifera, the Commission released a containment programme in a form of recommendations (not mandatory) to MS (Commission recommendation 2006/565/EC) When eradication of a regulated HO is not possible, MS are required to take all necessary measures to at least contain it. The HOs which may be targeted by specific control measures are either listed in the base Directive Annexes I and II (HOs found within the Community for the first time, or HOs found in MS where their presence was previously unknown), or other HOs previously unknown to occur in the Community, which are not listed specifically in the base Directive but which are of potential economic importance. To date, five control Directives exist, mainly for the potato sector (four in total) and a fifth Directive is on control measures related to carnation leaf-rollers. Control Directives are being used only when HOs occur in some parts of the Community. List of control measures (Council Directives): HOs Control measures 1 Potato wart disease Council Directive 69/464/EEC 2 Potato cyst eelworm Council Directive 69/465/EEC (will be repealed by Council Directive 2007/33/EC (in force as from 1/7/2010) 3 Carnation leaf-rollers Council Directive 74/647/EEC 4 Potato ring rot (Clavibacter michiganensis Council Directive 93/85/EEC ssp. sepedonicus) 5 Potato brown rot (Ralstonia solanacearum) Council Directive 98/57/EC The evaluation results indicate that emergency measures (Commission Decisions) are generally preferred over control measures (Council Directives), largely because of the decision-making process in each case. Control Directives are very detailed and need more time to prepare and to pass through the current legislative process which involves the Council, compared to emergency measures that are taken through comitology (i.e. at SCPH). Furthermore, any modifications to the Directives require the approval of the Council, and since the entry in force of the Lisbon Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 140
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Treaty in Dec. 1, 2009 co-decision Council and Parliament, and therefore delay the process. Only their technical annexes can be modified through comitology 152 . The vast majority of the organisations consulted by the evaluation consider that the CPHR has only partly been successful in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of the HOs in the EU, mainly because several difficulties have been experienced in defining and implementing official measures for the eradication and containment of HOs. General survey results Q6.1 (stakeholders): Extent to which, during the last 15 years, the CPHR has been successful in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of HOs in the MS: 22 out of 24 MS CAs and 23 out of 26 stakeholders consider that the CPHR has been only partly successful in preventing the entry and the establishment of HOs in the EU. In particular, the control and emergency measures are only partly considered to have been effective in achieving the objectives for which they have been set, with nearly a third of MS CAs and stakeholders considering the measures not to have been effective in eradicating the targeted pests (emergency measures) or in containing/reducing the targeted pests (control measures): General survey results Q6.6*: Extent to which, during the last 15 years, the EU emergency measures have been effective in eradicating the targeted pests, and the EU control Directives have been effective in containing/reducing the respective pests: 11 out of 26 MS CAs (9 do not know) and 10 out of 25 stakeholders (8 do not know) consider that the EU emergency and control measures have been effective**. * Q 6.6 for CA q/naire and Q6.5 for stakeholder q/naire ** the large number of ‗do not know‘ responses reflects divergence of opinion within the organisations, while in the case of stakeholders it may also be due to the fact that the measures are specific to some sectors and may have therefore not been relevant for some of the stakeholders that responded to the survey The situation has to be analysed case by case, taking into account mainly the biology of the HOs and the agro-climatic conditions of the region in which the HO occurs. Interviewees stressed that several biological factors (e.g. life cycle of the given HO, optimal flying period, preferred hosts and minor hosts, and effect of population density of the pest or host), which are specific to the location of the outbreak, are critical for determining the outcome, effectiveness and efficiency of an eradication programme. The effectiveness of the emergency and control measures in reaching their objectives for each specific HO has been rated as follows by respondents to the general survey (Q6.6): Table 3-15: Effectiveness of emergency and control measures by HO* 152 As discussed in section 2.7, the definition of the legal framework to replace the Comitology procedure is currently on going and it is therefore not possible at the time of redaction of this <strong>report</strong> to discuss implications of changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 141
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:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: 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 173: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
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?