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) development of reliable validated (or equivalent) diagnostic protocols, accepted and used by all MS should have a very high priority, as well as accreditation (quality assurance) of the laboratories. One MS also indicated that the equivalence for importing of propagating material is not determined at EU but at MS level, thus causing variability among MS. Harmonized protocols are necessary for export (to agree on what is a pest free situation) and for import purposes. The lack of harmonisation on the testing methods is also a source of strong discussion when talking about what is an appropriate performance for a laboratory. The EU Reference Laboratory 187 concept, as developed in the animal health and food safety domain, offers harmonisation (guidance on EU protocols) as well as flexibility (amendment of EU protocols according to scientific developments without recourse to comitology procedures). For a range of HOs, EPPO and IPPC have issued standards for diagnostic methods and procedures. To date, some 97 protocols have been developed by the EPPO, of which 4 general standards 188 . EPPO did a survey in 2008 189 on the use of these protocols and had positive results. Only in the case of the pests of Annex 1.A.1 (pests not present in Europe), were protocols not used due to the fact that the laboratories have not come across any samples in this case. EPPO is currently working on improving the availability of validation tests – which is one of the requirements for laboratory accreditation. For some tests, where available, the EPPO includes validation data in the protocols (e.g. on the limits of detection of tests, sensitivity, appropriateness). The aim is to avoid duplication of efforts. Many laboratories are currently in the process of preparing for laboratory accreditation, and EPPO is working to share the information and experience gained with accreditation between laboratories 190 . Conclusions Overall, in the majority of MS the existing capacity is considered to allow only partially the rapid and reliable diagnosis of all regulated HOs, and this is mostly due to the relatively limited and decreasing financial and human resources. Gaps for the detection (in terms of methods and reference materials) are indicated by several MS, particularly with regards to rare or new HOs, as well as increasing difficulties to find experienced experts in specific fields as expertise is generally eroding especially in classical subjects (as also noted under previous section). Resources for diagnostics are in many cases limited even with regard to HOs for which detection is possible and in terms of activities that the laboratories would technically be able to carry out. The divergence in diagnostic capacity across the EU is largely due to the inherent characteristic of research on plant health which explains the difficulties of attracting financial support in this field: plant science is not a high priority compared to other scientific fields such as nanotechnology, engineering etc., and commercial interest remains limited. In those MS where plant health is important for trade and production, the diagnostic sector is more developed, with significant resources devoted to research, a clear structure and organisation in 187 EU-RL; previously Community Reference Laboratory (CRL). 188 Accreditation, general quality assurance, purpose of diagnostic protocols, <strong>report</strong>ing and documentation. 189 F. Petter and Suffert, M. (2010), ―Survey on the use of tests mentioned in EPPO diagnostic protocols‖, OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 40, 121–126. 190 The EPPO workshop on quality assurance in 2007 presented the state of the art in the EU FCEC 174
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) place, and there is additional funding by industry. However, only a minority of MS are in this situation. There is lack of cooperation and networking among MS, although considered crucial for overcoming current deficiencies. The contribution of EU Projects, particularly EUPHRESCO, is generally recognised for having a positive impact on networking between research bodies and laboratory experts, but this needs to be further strengthened. Experts stress the fact that coordination among activities at MS level remains the main weakness for research and diagnostics at EU level. A particularly weak aspect is the development of diagnostic methods, for which funding is not always available. There are several EU funded projects to improve diagnostic methods/protocols and update with latest technology in this field (including DIAGPRO (Diagnostic Protocols), QAMP (whole genomic DNA amplification methods), QBOL (DNA bar coding) and Q-DETECT). At EU level, binding protocols for diagnostic methods do not exist (with the exception of some HOs for potato diseases under control measures), but for a range of HOs, the EPPO and IPPC have issued standards for diagnostic methods and procedures (some 97 protocols to date). Many laboratories are currently in the process of preparing for accreditation, and EPPO is working to share the experience gained between laboratories. Moving forward, the need to establish reference laboratories (NRLs and EU-RLs) was identified, in order to provide guidance on diagnostic methods and training, as well as to provide maintenance of reference collections. This issue is explored further in section 5.8.2. 3.9.2.2 Training This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the CPHR performance to date, taking into consideration EQ 18 (area G) of the ToR. EQ18. In how far have the CPHR requirements for appropriate training of MS plant health inspectors and diagnosticians been met and how can this be improved? Resources for training of inspectors are very limited and highly variable among MS, as the figures below demonstrate. Table 3-18: Resources for training on plant health, various MS and years MS Budget (various years) Cyprus 2006: 800 €, 2007: 800 €, 2008: 800 € Czech Republic For training of inspectors is yearly earmarked 2.5 % of SPA budget. In 2008 it was / 1 866 000 CZK. Estonia 2006 - 77918 Estonian kroons (EEK), 2007- 160410 EEK, 2008 - <strong>2454</strong>33 (1EUR = 15,64 EEK) France 2006 : 28 000 €, / 2007 : 20 000 €, / 2008 : 13 300 €. Germany < 10.000,00 € per year Hungary annually HUF 3.5 4 million, (13,000-14,500 € ) FCEC 175
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:
Page 157 and 158: 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 207: 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 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?