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) 3.12 Coherence with other EU policies This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the CPHR performance to date, taking into consideration EQ 20 (area I) of the ToR. EQ20: In how far is the CPHR appropriately connected and appropriately coordinated with related Community regimes? The coherence of the CPHR with the following Community regimes was explored in particular: 3.12.1 Coherence with the S&PM regime The EU seeds and plant propagating material (S&PM) legislation includes a series of 11 marketing directives aiming at regulating the certification of S&PM before their commercialisation. One aspect of this certification is the state of health of the S&PM. The emphasis on plant health varies considerably amongst the various Directives. The provisions on plant health are most prominent in the Directives dealing with the marketing of PM, in particular those on seed potatoes (Directive 2002/56/EC), vegetable and fruit PM (Directives 92/33/EEC and 92/34/EEC) and the PM of ornamental plants (Directive 98/56/EC). Council Directives on the marketing of S&PM lay down general plant health requirements such as, for seeds, ―harmful organisms which reduce the usefulness of the seed/propagating material shall be at the lowest possible level‖. Compared with the plant health legislation that targets quarantine diseases, the marketing directives target ‘non quarantine‘ diseases & pests that affect yields and the quality of production but do not qualify as quarantine pests, mainly because they are already widely distributed and are hardly dependent on human intervention for their spread. Within this category, a small group of pests, i.e. the regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), are nevertheless prohibited or only permitted within a certain tolerance on planting material such as certified seed potatoes, seeds and certain ornamental, vegetable and fruit plants. For seeds, it is specified that all HOs must be at the lowest possible level. The relation between Directive 2000/29/EC and the S&PM Directives was also discussed in the context of RNQPs in section 3.2.2. The existence of some inconsistencies between the S&PM and the CPHR legislation was identified by the majority of MS during the general survey and confirmed by the CAs and stakeholders during the field visits in the MS. General survey results Q 9.1 Source of inconsistencies between CPHR and S&PM legislation: 17 out of 25 MS CAs and 8 out of 22 stakeholders consider that CPHR overlaps with the S&PM legislation and that such overlapping can be a source of conflict/inconsistency (2 MS CAs and 11 stakeholders do not know). Q 9.2 Extent to which the revision of the CPHR in future should be guided by any of the principles developed under the S&PM regulation: 9 out of 24 MS CAs and 13 out of 22 stakeholders consider that the revision of the CPHR should be guided by the S&PM regulation (4 MS CAs and 8 stakeholders do not know). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 252
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) The identified inconsistencies refer to: Generally, the listing of organisms in two sets of legislation, i.e. the "quarantine" organisms in the plant health legislation and the "quality" organisms in the S&PM legislation; The listing of some specific organisms in both sets of legislation, i.e. Synchytrium endobioticum and Pseudomonas solanacearum; The unclear position of RNQPs; The co-existence of marketing standards for certificates and plant passports; The conducting of separate inspections for certification and for plant health purposes; The existence of two certification schemes for fruit plants, i.e. certification of fruit plants according to Article 4(b) of Directive 2008/90/EC and according to Articles 15 and 16 in Annex IV.A.II of Directive 2000/29/EC, where reference is made to a certification scheme. In the market place these two schemes are relevant for the same businesses (private operators do not in practice make the distinction between the two pieces of legislation). The evaluation of the Community legislation on the marketing of S&PM carried out by FCEC in 2008 had highlighted additional inconsistencies between the two sets of legislation, as follows: Concerning flower bulbs, the requirements of Directives 98/56 and 2000/29/EC differ on some points for the same crops; Concerning vegetable plants, producers of the plants from seed must guarantee that the plant produced is pathogen free whereas this obligation does not apply to the seeds he used to produce the plant; Directive 2002/56 on the marketing of seed potatoes allows the transport of Farm Saved Seed (FSS) (potatoes intended for planting but for own use) from one production site to another without the obligation to certify these. However, the plant health Directive 2000/29/EC requires that the transport of potatoes intended for planting (certified and uncertified, so including FSS) from one production site to another should be accompanied by a plant passport, and this should be controlled by the authorities; The fact that responsibilities for the implementation of the S&PM marketing Directives and the plant health Directive are split over different authorities, leads to inefficiencies in inspections and sometimes contradictory approaches. For example, the S&PM marketing Directives allow for delegation of inspections ‗under official supervision‘ whereas the plant health Directive does not allow this; Seed potatoes officially certified on the basis of Directive 2002/56 should satisfy minimum conditions as specified in Annex I and II of the Directive. A number of these conditions are related to certain plant diseases. Seed potatoes used as FSS are in general not officially inspected. The same evaluation concludes that: “although no major inconsistencies are observed between both sets of legislation, a much better consistency could be achieved quite easily on topics such as registration, definitions, and documentation”. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 253
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:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236: 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 285: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 309 and 310: Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 315 and 316: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 323 and 324: Source: FCEC, based on results of t
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?