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) With regard to re-exports, although the system is considered effective, the adequacy of the system in place is questioned by stakeholders within the sector of seeds. In particular it has been commented that, given the number of movements associated with trade of seeds, the current system of phytosanitary (re-)export certificates is inadequate to support: - The export of seeds produced in one MS and re-exported to a third country via another MS; - The export of seeds originally produced in a third country, to another third country. The difficulties are related, according to the stakeholders, to: - The use of re-export certificate (and the copy of the original certificate) also for products where the EU does not require a phytosanitary certificate when importing seeds; - The difficulties to obtain the EU Phytosanitary Communication document with all the required Additional Declarations for possible future re-exports; and - The missing legal basis to use this document as copied attachment with a re-export certificate. General survey results Q4.1.a Extent to which the plant health rules for intra-Community trade have been effective for preventing the spread of HOs: Provisions MS CA Stakeholders Official plant health movement document 15 out of 26 (8 do not know) 6 out of 23 (16 do not know) linked to inspection at final destination and re-export (Dir. 2004/103/EC Intra-Community phytosanitary communication document for transit (Roosendaal group) 9 out of 26 (15 do not know) 3 out of 23 (19 do not know) General survey results Q4.1.b Extent to which the plant health rules for intra-Community trade have been effective for ensuring the free circulation in plants / plant products: Provisions MS CA Stakeholders Official plant health movement document 19 out of 26 (4 do not know) 7 out of 23 (16 do not know) linked to inspection at final destination and re-export (Dir. 2004/103/EC Intra-Community phytosanitary communication document for transit (Roosendaal group) 9 out of 26 (15 do not know) 4 out of 20 (16 do not know) Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 152
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Although the current documentation as such does not therefore appear to cause any significant problems in re-export and transit 163 , it is rather the decision-making mechanism followed by the EU and the delays incurred that are of most concern to traders. The implementation of EU phytosanitary standards carries costs, but also benefits, for EU producers and traders (these issues are discussed in section 3.11). Furthermore, the international phytosanitary system and the application of SPS rules, both in the international and bilateral context, are currently built on mutual trust and confidence between trading partners NPPOs (this issue is discussed in section 4.2). In this context, EU legislation on imports and internal trade has an impact on the competitiveness and trade potential for EU exports of plants and plant products. In particular: The fewer pests of concern to third countries are regulated within EU, and the slower the pest recognition and regulation (HO classification and listing) process, the more difficult it is for EU exporters to document that products are in accordance with plant quarantine legislation in third countries. In this context, a fast evaluation of the risk imposed by emerging pests would be useful and would make it easier for exporters to adapt to the new market situation, instead of facing emergency measures disrupting trade (e.g. Tuta absoluta, Red palm weevil); The terms protected zone and pest free area may cause confusion in importing countries, thus making it more burdensome for an exporter to justify the pest status of a product. Furthermore, some way of ensuring updated information on the pest status within EU, in particular pest free areas for pests not regulated within the EU but of concern to third countries, would be very useful 164 . 3.9 Activities in support of the CPHR A number of activities and initiatives which support the CPHR are in place, although these are not explicitly part of it at present. These include research and development, diagnostic capacity and the laboratory infrastructure, training, and communication and consultation for policy development and implementation. 3.9.1 Research and development and scientific advice This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the CPHR performance to date, taking into consideration EQ 19 (area H) of the ToR. 163 For consignments in transit, as noted in section 3.4.7, there is some concern that lack of traceability from final PoD back to PoE could in theory pose a problem, due to the complexity of trade patterns, where only controls at final destination are in place. However, in practice, there has been no evidence that such problems have occurred. Also, as noted in section 3.4.5, there was some concern for derogations regarding transit consignments, because no phytosanitary certificate is required in some cases, but again there has been no concrete evidence of such problems. 164 E.g. EPPO provides information on Tuta absoluta but this is not updated for the latest in the EU, and this may create more general doubts about the pest status of EU products. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 153
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:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 185: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
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?