2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
In addition, it is expected that the capacity-building activities of EUPHRESCO will directly lead
to the setting up of new national phytosanitary research programmes in European countries
where they currently do not exist, and the creation of ‗best practice‘ guides that would benefit
non-EU plant health bodies, including those that are key exporters to the EU and therefore the
likely source of HOs or invasive species.
Most of the interviewees consider that the EUPHRESCO platform is the correct tool for this
coordination and that it should be maintained on a long term basis. They also consider that if EU
funding were to be stopped the platform would be endangered.
3.9.1.4 The role of EFSA (PRAs)
In its work, the Commission is assisted by EFSA, which since 2006 has included a Scientific
Panel on Plant Health (the PLH Panel). The role of the PLH panel is to deliver scientific opinions
on the risks posed by HOs, on the basis of PRAs. EFSA and its PLH panel work within EFSA‘s
mandate to respond to requests for scientific advice from the EC, EP, and MS (Regulation
178/2002, Art. 29). So far there have been no MS requests, only through the EC (these are
decided by the Commission in consultation with the SCPH). EFSA can also issue an opinion on
its own initiative, on matters falling within its mission.
To date, there have been 37 peer reviews of PRAs by the EFSA PLH Panel at the request of the
EU, of which 30 were of PRAs from France, submitted in 2006, concerning bananas and citrus
pests from the French Overseas Department, 2 on EPPO PRAs and 1 each regarding PRAs by
Spain, UK, Lithuania, Poland and South Africa. The aim has been to assess whether the
organisms in question were harmful and whether they are therefore eligible to be regulated under
Directive 2000/29/EC.
Apart from peer reviews of PRAs, EFSA can carry out its own PRAs (for the whole EU) and
extend the scope of existing national PRAs to the whole EU territory. The scope of a national
PRA could be extended to the whole EU-27 (although in view of the data required this is almost
like conducting a new PRA), and an EPPO PRA may be sent to EFSA for evaluation is some MS
express disagreement on its conclusions. Scientific advice can also be provided by international
experts, including the EPPO. External scientific advice may also be requested for the assessment
of impacts of policy options under consideration for addressing the risks.
Most of the interviewees at both MS CA and stakeholder level consider that EFSA expertise and
actual mandate should play a key role in the development of EU wide PRAs and that this activity
should be complementary to the EPPO and national activities, in order to maximise the
availability of PRA data to support decision-making. EFSA is structured and positioned to
develop robust PRAs to provide support to policy makers.
One area where there is scope for such cooperation to be sought is in the performance of
economic impact analyses. The analysis of economic impacts does not fall within the mandate of
EFSA, however it is an essential element of PRAs according to IPPC standards (ISPM 11 and
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 161