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) EQ19. In how far is the CPHR adequately supported by research and development? The extent to which the CPHR is adequately supported by research and development is examined in terms of: overall funding for research on plant health issues and the prioritisation of existing research; the availability of classical biological scientific expertise and innovative molecular identification and detection methods; the adequacy of scientific efforts in relation to pest risk analysis and the identification of potential impacts of emerging challenges for plant health (globalization and climate change issues); the coordination of research programmes across the EU (including via EUPHRESCO) and with third country trade partners. The current role of EFSA in terms of scientific advice is also analysed. 3.9.1.1 Overview of EU/MS research programmes and funding on plant health Plant health research is carried out in the context of the activities of the European agriculture, horticulture and forestry industry and is aimed at protecting internal and external trade, as well as optimising EU production of healthy plants and plant products. The value of exports of fruit, vegetables, plants, cut-flowers and bulbs is estimated at €6 billion annually. In comparison, the estimated annual cost of national phytosanitary science and inspection programmes is almost €100 million, and funding of specific national phytosanitary research programmes is estimated at about €15 million. This research is necessary and has a strong impact, as it supports maintenance of national compliance with EU Plant Health legislation, i.e. diagnostic services, scientific advice, policy development and inspection activities 165 . It is also noted that plant health research activities are mainly commissioned under national MS budgets, and these account for roughly 90% of all such budgets available in the EU. The RTD Framework Programmes have funded PLH research, the projects funded by EU FP6 and FP7 are summarized in the table below. Of these, EUPHRESCO is an ERA-Net which seeks to coordinate funding of national projects into an overall platform, and is highly relevant for this study. In addition, there are many national research programmes and projects for plant health. The already available EUPHRESCO <strong>report</strong>s cover 25 MS. Of these, 14 have significant phytosanitary programmes; 7 stated that they had no formal programme (Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia), even if they supported small-scale projects. The total average annual research funding available for plant health in the MS was estimated at €15 million (based on the funding available amongst EUPHRESCO members in a recent 3-year period). EU-funded projects in the area of plant health have mainly been on the development of specific Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) through research, or the development of diagnostic technologies (16 diagnostic projects related to statutory pests, amounting to approximately €16 million over a 12 year period; ca. 11% of the national MS expenditure 166 ). 165 A. Inman (2008) EUPHRESCO Article: plant health at risk – EU Public Service Review – Issue 15 166 Examples since FP3 include: Colletotrichum diagnostics and taxonomy; Monilinia diagnostics; potato brown rot (Ralstonia solanacearum) diagnostics; potato ring rot (Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus) diagnostics; strawberry redcore diagnostics (Phytophthora fragariae); Diagnostic Protocols for specific EU quarantine pests (DIAGPRO); feasibility of an EU Plant Health Directive diagnostic chip (DIAGCHIP); on-site diagnostics (PORTCHECK); Karnal bunt (Tilletia indica) risks to wheat; pine wood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 154
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Table 3-16: Main plant health research projects in FP6 and FP7 FP Acronym Funding scheme FP6 PORTCHECK STREP 004B Title Development of generic ‗on site‘ molecular diagnostics for EU quarantine pests and pathogens FP6 RAPRA STREP Risk analysis for Phytophthora ramorum, a newly recognised pathogen threat to Europe and the cause of Sudden Oak death in the USA Perio EU financing d (Mio Euro) 04-07 1.3 04-07 1.3 FP6 PEPEIRA STREP Pepino mosaic virus: epidemiology, 07-10 0.8 economic impact and Pest risk analysis FP6 EUPHRESCO ERA-Net European phytosanitary research 06-10 2.6 coordination FP7 PRATIQUE SCP Enhancements of pest risk analysis 08-11 2.7 techniques FP7 SHARCO SCP Sharka containment 06-12 2.9 FP7 QBOL SCP Development of a new diagnostic tool using DNA bar-coding to identify quarantine organisms in support of plant health 05-10 3.0 Source: DG Research The EU has also supported plant health research through other programmes, including EU COST Actions (European Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technical Research) 167 , and proposals for Networks of Excellence related to Plant Health. Indeed the EU has supported some specific research networks and expert groups such as the European Whitefly Studies Network, the EU Potato Virus Expert Group and the EU Bacterial Experts Group. In addition, within the overall EU-funded European Technology Platforms, two platforms are potentially highly-relevant to coordination of European plant health programmes, the Forestbased sector TP 168 and Plants for the Future 169 , and two platforms for which ensuring the safety and security of plants and plant products may be a reasonably high priority, Food for Life 170 and the European Biofuels TP 171 . risks (RISKBURS); risk analysis techniques, with pinewood nematode as a model (PHRAME); potato ring rot control (RINGROT); Phytophthora ramorum risks (RAPRA); and Diabrotica virgifera risk analysis and management. 167 e.g. Action 853 - Agricultural Biomarkers for Array Technology, EU Concerted Actions (e.g. RESISTVIR; EU CROP BIOTERROR; alder Phytophthora). 168 www.forestplatform.org.eu 169 www.epsoweb.eu/tp 170 http://etp.ciaa.be 171 www.biofuelstp.eu Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 155
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:
Page 137 and 138: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 159 and 160: 3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 187: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
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?