2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
The need for improved coherence between both sets of legislation was confirmed during the
CPHR general survey and interviews, with recommendations formulated as follows:
The two regimes should be complementary with an effective process for transferring
HOs from one to the other. One stakeholder representing producers refers here to the
example of the Pepino mosaic virus that is so widespread that it could be treated as a
quality organism for all plants except for seeds;
The concept of RNQP needs to be addressed to consider whether and how this category
fits in;
The EU certification schemes should cover all relevant requirements, on both quality
and quarantine organisms;
The coherence of the marketing Directive on fruits and plant health need to be
improved. There is a need for a single community certification scheme that integrates
elements of Directive 2000/29/EC (e.g. testing the propagating material for quarantine
pests) and of Directive 2008/90 which is accepted by all relevant authorities;
In practice, ensuring plant health is an integrated part of quality assurance for
propagating material, such as seeds. It would be helpful if this was regulated in a single
Community legal instrument and if supervision/control was managed by a single
operational authority in each MS. Preventive and hygiene measures related to quality
organisms, RNQPs and quarantine pests are mostly based on the same principles. In
companies this is handled by a single person or function. It would therefore make sense
for this function to have a single counterpart from the NPPO-side. Current marketing
Directives for propagating materials already facilitate delegation of inspection tasks
―under official supervision‖; this principle could be further extended to the CPHR;
Different requirements apply to the concept of local markets under the two sets of
legislation; e.g. registration is not necessary in the local market under Directive
2000/29/EC whereas it is necessary in all cases in the S&PM marketing Directives.
However, it should be noted that some interviewees indicated possible problems associated
with ―bringing together‖ the two Directives, such as the different approach as regards
delegation of tasks between the two regimes. On the other hand, there is scope to explore
further the possibility of combining certification requirements (e.g. use of a single document;
combination of plant passport and label) and inspection requirements under the two sets of
legislation.
Currently, it is only possible for NPPOs to delegate control responsibilities to third parties
‗exclusively charged with specific public functions‘ (Article 2(1)(g) of Directive
2000/29/EC 236 ), with the exception of the recent modification for delegation of laboratory
tasks to private bodies, while delegation to private bodies is generally accepted and even
236 Article 2 (1) (g) of Directive 2000/29/EC indicates that ‗The responsible official bodies in a Member State
may, in accordance with national legislation, delegate the tasks provided for in this Directive to be
accomplished under their authority and supervision to any legal person, whether governed by public or by
private law, which under its officially approved constitution is charged exclusively with specific public functions,
provided that such person, and its members, has no personal interest in the outcome of the measures it takes‟.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 254