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) Outsourcing is organised in those cases where the official laboratories do not have the capacity to detect all the 250 HOs listed in the Directive. Outsourcing is organised by several MS: At national level, i.e. collaboration with research institutes and diagnostic centres. This option was indicated by 8 MS; At international level, i.e. to laboratories of other MS (mostly to the UK and NL) or (as indicated by two MS) outside the EU, on a case by case basis. This option was indicated by 14 MS. In particular, one MS indicated that the diagnostics is contracted (since 10 years) through official tenders and that 2/4 of the contracting laboratories (responsible for the majority of the analysis) are outside the country. For the second option, some MS indicated they use the EPPO expert database 184 as a tool to find appropriate expertise in order to submit the samples. One MS indicated that when the routine laboratories are not able to perform the test, these are conducted by national reference laboratories (NRLs). In the past five years, several MS have created NRLs. Currently NRLs for plant health are in place in nine MS: France, Belgium and Czech Republic - where a legal basis for NRLs within national legislation is established, as well as Hungary, Italy (for some HOs), Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain. One clear outcome of the survey and the interviews is the lack of cooperation and networking, among MS. It is recognised in many quarters that EU projects, in particular EUPHRESCO, have had a positive impact for networking between research bodies and laboratory experts, nevertheless it is considered this needs to be further strengthened. This point was also highlighted by some experts, stressing the fact that the main weakness for research and diagnostics at EU level is indeed a problem of coordination among the different laboratories and research units. EU projects in this field, such as EUPHRESCO, are partly directed at overcoming this problem. The improvement of collaboration between diagnostic laboratories has been supported by EUPHRESCO through trans-national research projects which compare, validate and further develop diagnostic methods for specific pests, typically resulting in updating or production of new EPPO protocols. One of these projects for instance, DIAGPRO (Diagnostic Protocols for Organisms Harmful to Plants), focused on the development and validation of diagnostic protocols for 15 organisms of importance to plant health, among which the validation of PCRbased diagnostics for potato brown rot and potato ring rot. This should therefore enable these potentially faster, cheaper and more reliable methods to be used routinely by MS diagnostic laboratories. Another project, the QAMP project (whole genomic DNA amplification 184 The EPPO Diagnostic capacity database provides an inventory of the diagnostic expertise available in the EPPO region (based on individual experts‘ own declarations of their expertise). It is searchable by laboratory and individual expert. Emphasis is given to regulated pests (i.e. pests of EPPO A1 and A2 Lists, pests mentioned in EPPO Standards PM4: Production of Healthy Plants for Planting), pests possibly presenting a risk to EPPO member countries (EPPO Alert List) and plants of the EPPO List of invasive alien plants. The database is not meant to include common pests which are widely distributed in Europe. FCEC 172
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) methods, funded by UK and NL partners) supports the development of techniques for producing reference standards for DNA-based collections and for proficiency testing for use by diagnostic laboratories. Other projects in support of the plant health diagnostic area include: - QBOL project (DNA bar coding): Informative genes from selected species on the EU Directive and EPPO lists are DNA bar coded from specimens. The sequences, together with taxonomic features, will be included in an internet-based database system; the developed DNA bar-coding protocols and the use of DNA bar-coding as a diagnostic tool will be evaluated and validated by phytosanitary end users like reference labs. - Q-DETECT: development of tools for use primarily by inspection services in the field rather than in the laboratories. Such tools are being developed for example for stone fruit diseases. There is consensus – amongst MS and the experts interviewed – that in order to have adequate expertise available for all HOs, and in the context of limited and decreasing resources, the best solution would be not to have all experts available in all MS, but a good network covering the range of expertise needed across the EU-27. It is widely acknowledged that EU coordination in the field of diagnosis, analytical methods is necessary and urgently required. It is suggested that one of the tools could be joining and linking the available expertise (e.g. more links between diagnostic laboratories would overcome the issue of the lack of experts for a specific pest). However it also noted that the issue is not only related to availability of diagnostic expertise and infrastructure - and mutual trust/acceptability between MS - but also the problems of maintaining collections, as this is usually the first expenditure to fall with budget cuts and collections are expensive to maintain. In the view of some MS, it is not necessary that every MS has a collection, provided there is good sharing of information, and that it is affordable to have EU collections. Furthermore, it is suggested that the EU collection centres could be located at different places and linked through a virtual centre. Sharing of information is also seen as beneficial in that with better cooperation, MS could discuss together and exchange experiences: this could lead to a more uniform view of what threats MS should be concerned about (including risk assessments), and to a harmonization of testing methods for inspection of samples. One way of establishing such cooperation could be the establishment of EU-RLs, and this option will be analysed in section 5.8.2. At EU level, binding protocols for diagnostic methods do not exist 185 , with the exception of some HOs of potato 186 (Potato Cyst Nematodes, Brown Rot and Ring Rot) for which Control Directives are in place and that provide detailed requirements for detection and diagnosis. This leads - in the view of several MS and stakeholders - to differences in the analytical methods and in the results obtained, and therefore is an issue which needs to be addressed. In particular, coordination needs to be established in this field in order to define common protocols for testing. This is also strongly requested by some stakeholders, suggesting that 185 According to Directive 2000/29/EC, the NPPO is responsible for defining and selecting the analytical method and protocol to be applied. FCEC 173
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:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156: 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 205: 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 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?