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) ultimately the scale of the impact can potentially reach those in the animal health sector (the same caveat on limits of comparisons applies in this case). Furthermore, other cases not specific to the EU, but that have occurred elsewhere are an example of the potential scale of impact that could be reached 202 . In the case of forestry pests, for instance, the occurrence of the Mountain pine beetle in Canada has already caused the death of 10 million ha. of pines was recorded in 2007, with losses in British Columbia of 6 billion €. Studies indicate that 80% of mature pine in British Columbia will be killed by the Mountain pine beetle by 2013. 202 The present-day cost of the damage caused by invasive alien species affecting forestry and agriculture in Canada has been estimated to be CND$7.5 billion annually (Dawson, 2002) FCEC 196
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated potential impact Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Impact to date Data on the sector Key plant(s) Estimated potential impact host Impact to date Data on the sector Coniferous forests Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Estimated impact: 10-13 million ha. of coniferous trees susceptible to be infested (Mediterranean forest) Mortality rate: 50-90%. Production value: 650 €/ha. Potential damage: 8 million ha of forests, approx. 5 billion €/year. Source: FCEC, (2008) Cost of control measures in Portugal in the years 1999-2008: 40 million € (of which 20 million € of Community contribution through solidarity payments). Environmental impact: 2 million adult trees + 3.5 million small trees eradicated in the ―old affected area‖. Area: 81 million ha. Harvested production: Removals of coniferous wood amounted to 328,515 000 m3(r) in 2007, of which 21% in SE, 19% in DE, and 14% in FI (Source: FAOSTAT/UNECE). FI: 22.9 million ha. Forest industry production: 15 billion €/year Production value: 650 €/ha. Exports: Export of coniferous industrial round wood in EU 27 amounted to approx. 2 billion $ in 2007. 8 MS account for 80% of total exports: DE (26%), SE (16%), CZ (12%), LT (8%), FR (6%), FI (4%), AT (4%). (Source: FAOSTAT/UNECE) Maize Potential impact over a 25 year period (EU): 6.12 billion € 203 if no regulation; 3.8 to 7.0 billion € depending on regulation. These estimates are based on the range of options presented in the impact assessment and are high in all cases given the widespread extent of the disease. However, even at this advanced stage, regulation is less costly than deregulation. Source: FCEC, (2009) 2 million € Community in the period 2005-2009 contribution for solidarity payments. Area: Total conventional maize: 13 million ha. (Source: FCEC, 2009). Grain maize (2008): 8 million ha. Total maize area in 5 MS represents 70% of the European maize sown area: FR (22,4 %), RO (20,2%), DE (12,5%), IT (10,1%), and HU (9,4%). (FCEC, 2009). Production: 63 million t. Value of production: 10 billion € (value at basic price) (source: EUROSTAT) Exports: 350 million € (2008) Anoplophora chinensis Key host Various deciduous trees, such as Acer, Corylus, Prunus, Citrus, Malus, Populus and Salix. (Fruit, ornamental and 203 This figure refers to the estimated impact of Option 3 (Repeal all Diabrotica legislation at EC and MS level, leave decision on control measures to the farmers) analyzed by the study. Costs for this option consist in the costs not linked to regulation and supported by the farmers to control the Diabrotica population in the infested zones. FCEC 197
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:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 229: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 241 and 242: Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?