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)
plant health, as is currently done in the field of food and feed safety for food and feed
business operators (Article 17). In this case, the system also foresees sanctions or penalties for
non-compliance of operators to be laid down by MS (MS CAs retain ultimate responsibility
for the supervision, control and smooth running of the system). The seeds sector, in particular,
has made reference to the system set up in the US 242 .
3.12.3 Coherence with environmental policy
The coherence with environmental policy was examined in particular with reference to forest
protection, biodiversity and nature conservation (Natura 2000 243 ). Some of these issues have
already been explored in earlier sections of this Report (in particular the sections on natural
spread and Invasive Alien Species (IAS)).
The extent to which the CPHR is currently suited to serve forestry and nature conservation
objectives, and whether it would be desirable or feasible to extend the scope to this direction
has been explored further in section 3.1.1.
Generally speaking, the results of the general survey indicate that several respondents
consider the CPHR overlaps with environment policy, although a large number of
stakeholders indicated ‗do not know‘.
General survey results
Q 9.1 Source of inconsistencies between CPHR and the environmental policy:
12 out of 25 MS CAs and 7 out of 22 stakeholders consider that CPHR overlaps with environmental policy and
that such overlapping can be a source of conflict/inconsistency (6 MS CAs and 15 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 environmental policy:
13 out of 25 MS CAs and 13 out of 22 stakeholders consider that the revision of the CPHR should be guided by
environmental policy (5 MS CAs and 7 stakeholders do not know).
In the area in particular of IAS, quarantine pests (in IPPC terms) and IS (in CBD terms) there
is a conceptual overlap (as illustrated in Figure 3-3). As discussed in section 3.1.1, the CPHR
is not explicit about the extent to which IAS are covered by plant health legislation. In
practice, many regulated pests are IAS and are already listed in Directive 2000/29/EC (e.g.
Anoplophora spp.) The EU strategy on IAS needs to complement the plant health regime and
avoid overlaps/duplication. There needs to be a clear boundary between the two. Overlap and
242 The example suggested in this case is the system developed by the US Agricultural Phytosanitary Inspection
Service (APHIS), the so-called National Seed Health System (www.seedhealth.org).
243 Natura 2000 is an EU wide network of nature protection areas established under the Habitats Directive
(Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora) and the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds). The directives are concerned with the protection of natural
habitats, fauna and flora. The habitats directive is the main Community instrument safeguarding biodiversity. It
introduced the obligation to preserve habitats and species of Community interest. Each MS is responsible for
identifying and designating as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) sites (and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
under the Birds Directive) which are important for the protection of the species and habitats covered by the
Directive. These areas benefit from statutory or contractual measures and, where appropriate, management plans
which will ensure their long-term preservation by integrating human activities into a sustainable development
strategy.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 257