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) The introduction of sending a copy of EUROPHYT notification to the country of origin of the consignment. The objective of a higher degree of transparency and simplification could be pursued also through the revision of the Directive, which currently lacks clarity both for MS and for TCs and need to be made more readable. Conclusions The current communication activities around the CPHR are generally perceived to be limited, and confined mainly at public level (between COM and MS authorities). A more transparent communication of the actions to stakeholders, based upon a risk analysis and action scheme would contribute to better results. The current level of consultation in CPHR decision-making is generally perceived by stakeholders to be relatively limited, with traders seen as more represented via their organisations than producers/growers (in part due to less divergence of interests within the representative organisations). It is generally acknowledged that the CPHR has to seek a sensitive balance between conflicting interests (i.e. trade interests versus production interests, divergent interests across MS depending on production and trade interests). Furthermore, it is stressed that interests of stakeholders may not fully correspond to plant health protection objectives. Plant health encompasses significant public good components and, in this context, plant health authorities consider that the interests of stakeholders should be taken into account insofar they are in line with plant health objectives, which are considered the overriding priority for policy making in this field. On the other hand, stakeholders call for a proportionate and balanced approach in deciding on plant health measures, based on appropriate PRA. More generally, the need for raising public awareness on public health was also identified. Moving forward, options to improve current communication and consultation procedures are discussed in section Error! Reference source not found.. 3.11 The costs and benefits of the CPHR This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the CPHR performance to date, taking into consideration EQ 21 and EQ22 (area J) of the ToR. EQ21: In how far has the CPHR successfully prevented the entry, establishment and spread of HOs and what were the social, economic and environmental impacts? EQ22: What are the costs and benefits of the CPHR? FCEC 192
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 3.11.1 Successes and failures, critical factors According to the results of the general survey, the large majority of MS CAs and stakeholders consider that the CPHR has been partly successful in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of HO in their country. General survey results Q 6.3. for CA and Q6.1. for stakeholders – Extent to which the CPHR has successfully prevented the entry, establishment and spread of HO in your country 21 out MS CAs of 24 and 23 out of 26 stakeholders consider that CPHR has been partly successful in preventing the entry, establishment and spread of HO in their country (no ‗do not know‘ responses). Generally, CPHR provisions on imports and eradication/control of HOs have provided the most effective protection as regards the HOs covered by the EU Control Directives. The best examples have been the control measures for Clavibacter michiganensis spp. sepedonicus (ring rot) and Ralstonia solanacearum (brown rot). Without considering PL, where ring rot was present at the time of its accession to EU, infestation with ring rot and brown rot has been kept at a very low level, despite its presence in a number of third countries. Reduction in the number of outbreaks has been observed in the EU, year on year as is illustrated in the following graphs: Figure 3-16: Evolution of potato brown rot and ring rot, 1995-2008 (EU excl. PL) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Nb of lots of seed potatoes contaminated with brown rot Nb of lots of ware potatoes contaminated with brown rot Nb of lots of seed potatoes contaminated with ring rot Nb of lots of ware potatoes contaminated with ring rot Source: compiled by FCEC based on FVO summary data on MS surveys for brown rot and ring rot In view of the significance of the potato sector in the EU, any case of outbreak of brown rot or ring rot is a financial disaster for growers as economic consequences (due to production losses and negative impact on trade) are large and quick to take effect, also as a result of rumours. These diseases are a particular threat to the seed potato industry with affected farms having to give up seed production. The estimated costs of the possible impact of potato ring rot in FCEC 193
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:
Page 159 and 160:
3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 225: 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 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
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?