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) 3.12.6 Coherence with Community Customs Provisions Generally speaking, the results of the general survey indicate that several respondents consider that CPHR is not coherent with the Community customs provisions. General survey results Q 9.1 Source of inconsistencies between CPHR and Community Customs Provisions: 12 out of 25 MS CAs and 6 out of 21 stakeholders consider that CPHR overlaps with Community Customs Provisions and that this can be a source of conflict/inconsistency (5 MS CAs and 13 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 PPP legislation: 10 out of 25 MS CAs and 8 out of 21 stakeholders consider that the revision of the CPHR should be guided by the Community Customs Provisions (6 MS CA and 10 stakeholders do not know). In particular, respondents to the general survey and interviewees have referred to the following aspects: The lack of consistency with customs codes is making phytosanitary controls impossible. The Annexes to Directive 2000/29/EC indicate the list of species to be controlled at border but this list does not correspond to customs codes; Customs codes do not reflect the complex categories listed in the plant health import requirements (customs codes are currently used for wood items only); Inconsistencies exist between the customs nomenclature (TARIC codes) and Annex V of Directive 2000/29/EC, where some codes used are outdated or incorrect; There have been several comments that any modification to the TARIC codes should be directly taken into consideration in Annex V, but this is difficult to realize as modifications are numerous and frequent. According to one MS CA, the solution could be to replace the current reference to TARIC codes in the Directive with an Internet link towards the online TARIC codes. One MS CA indicated the need to align phytosanitary regulations with the transit procedure. Nevertheless, full alignment of phytosanitary transit and custom transit is by definition impossible as the International Customs Convention has other definitions for transit than the IPPC and this cannot be reconciled. Another MS CA referred to the concept of Authorised Economic Operator of the Customs provisions that could be applied in PH. According to this concept, if an importer imports same goods, same amount, through same channel every week, and there are good experiences with this importer, controls are not needed every time. An operator which is well organized and meets certain requirements is rewarded for this. If a problem appears, the operator can lose their status and go back into the more intensive inspection system. Finally, during the interviews, several MS CAs have insisted on the importance of communication between Customs authorities and Plant Health authorities, at EC and national levels, to help to identify risks in relation to new trade flows and to ensure the control of risky consignments in case different approaches are used for their identification. For example, Customs often use software which identifies certain combinations ‗product X country of Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 266
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) origin‘ as ‗risky‘ from a phytosanitary point of view 259 . The concept of ‗country of origin‘ is defined as ‗the country where the goods come from‘ by the Customs authorities whereas it corresponds to the ‗country where the plants grew‘ for the phytosanitary authorities. The cooperation of the implementation of plant health import rules with customs systems and procedures was also analysed in section 3.4.3 of the Report. 3.12.7 Coherence with EU Animal Health Strategy Respondents to the general survey and interviewees did not identify any areas of inconsistency between the CPHR and the new EU Animal Health Strategy but their comments and opinions mainly focused on the principles that are of interest to the CPHR. General survey results Q 9.1 Source of inconsistencies between CPHR and EU Animal Health Strategy: 2 out of 25 MS CAs and 0 out of 21 stakeholders consider that there are inconsistencies between the CPHR and the EU Animal Health Strategy (7 MS CAs and 19 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 EU Animal Health Strategy: 7 out of 25 MS CAs and 1 out of 23 stakeholder consider that the revision of the CPHR should be guided by the EU Animal Health Strategy (8 MS CA and 20 stakeholders do not know). Overall, they consider that the CPHR should gain from with the experience of the EU Animal Health Strategy, in particular from the following principles or concepts: Higher formalisation and rigour due to strong public interest issues (e.g. for nature and forest conservation, rural landscapes, generally considered as public goods); The need for improved diagnosis, with the establishment of reference laboratories (at national level, possibly also at EU level), benefiting from the experience of NRLs and EU-RLs in the animal health sector; Approaches to improve the link to Community Customs Codes; Greater emphasis on prevention and early reaction at production level; Greater emphasis on prevention and early reaction at import level; Approaches to improve notification and traceability; Harmonisation of documentation and certification requirements; Approaches to regionalisation. It is noted that the plant health sector requires a significantly more extensive and disperse plant health supervision system (number of plants, number of quarantine organisms, number of entities) than the animal health sector, and this needs to be taken into account when examining the feasibility of implementing the methods and measures applied in the animal health sector. Some respondents to the general survey identified a certain overlap between the plant health and the animal health legislations as regards the import of invertebrates. It appears that the 259 An example given was Quercus coming from the USA or Armenia, because of the risk of introducing Ceratocystis fagacearum in the EU Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 267
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:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 299: 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 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?