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) Table 3-17: Organisation of plant health laboratory tasks in the MS Country Laboratories (central-regional level) Delegation NRL for PH Additional information Bulgaria Denmark The Central Laboratory for Plant Quarantine (CLPQ) carries out phytosanitary tests of imported and domestic plants, plant products, soil and other materials. There are laboratories attached to each Regional Service for Plant Protection (RSPP), where tests are carried out. The CLPQ validates positive and doubtful results of the analysis made at the RSPP Laboratories. The CLPQ is also involved in coordinating the activities at RSPP, issuing methodological guidelines for inspection and drafting monitoring programmes; it also provides instructions to staff on diagnostics and identification of pests. The Danish Plant Directorate operates its own laboratory for identification of HOs.. The PH department consists of the inspection and administrative unit (providing guidance to inspectors) and the diagnostic laboratory with laboratory technicians. All work close together with 25 district PH inspectors. Its broad obligations refer to plant health monitoring, see potato certification, seed (seed health, GMO, cereal variety, seed dressing), feeding (GMO, salmonella) and plants (GMO, larch hybrids, plant health). The sole official laboratory responsible for analysing samples taken during inspections is part of the DPD. Co-operation arrangements with official recognized scientific institutions guarantee that the full range of HOs can be dealt with. Currently, the extent to which testing is done in DK or is commissioned from an officially recognized laboratory delegated elsewhere depends on time, money, expertise, working force, as well as the source of funding for the analysis (more freedom in case of State money instead of funding through fees). Intense discussion can take place with the growers on this. No In their responses to the general survey, DPD has listed 19 HOs in prioritized order for which improvement is needed on the testing method in DK. Two example for which improvements are needed are 1) testing of citrus coming from South America for the absence of Guignardia citricarpa for which the current testing method takes 14 days, which is too long when considering this type of commodity; 2) testing of wood packages for the absence of PWN, which takes over 50 days as they do not have the required facility in DK and need to delegate to another country. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 168
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Country Laboratories (central-regional level) Delegation NRL for PH Additional information France Germany Italy Lithuania NL The diagnostic infrastructure is currently being fully reorganised to better adapt to the present needs. A network of 19 approved laboratories became operational in May 2009. This will allow for a better distribution of tasks between routine laboratories, reference laboratories and research, giving clear tasks and responsibilities to each partner. There is an action plan paper on how to improve diagnostics and quality. Some laboratories are quite advanced in this area and have lab accreditation. The heads of regional services will meet on this subject soon, as some co-operation may assist efficiency here. Each Regional Phytosanitary Service has its own laboratory; in some cases contracted to Universities. The CRA-PAV ISZA act as NRLs for plant health issues The Phytosanitary Research Laboratory is a department of the State Plant Protection Service (SPPS). It provides full diagnostic and scientific support to the SPPS. One NRL and three Regional Offices in charge of carrying out initial screening and preparation of samples. In peak imports period, testing is contracted to private laboratories under specific contract agreements. No private laboratories involved in phytosanitary matters. National Laboratory for Plant Protection (LNPV) is responsible for validating methods and for the overall direction of network The definition of a network of reference laboratories is on going. For some pests, this has already been put in place (Ralstonia Solacenearum, Citrus Tristeza Virus, Erwinia amylovora) One NRL exists in the Netherlands, and it is part of the plant protection service (PD) - Department of Diagnostics in Wageningen- . It supervises the work done at the laboratories of the The needs for analysis are better taken into consideration by routine laboratories, with the organization that is currently being undertaken, but this does not yet cover all regulated HOs as: (1) methodological development is needed to produce diagnostic tools which can be given to routine laboratories; and (2) reagent of appropriate quality are not available to cover all needs. Adequate diagnostic capacity for listed HOs (etermination up to genus and specie); for those of new introduction rely on expertise at international level Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 169
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:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152: 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 201: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 241 and 242: Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
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?