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)
3.13 Key conclusions from comparison of the CPHR with third country systems
The presentation of the plant health regime in the selected five top trading partners
demonstrates that important differences to the CPHR are present and that the regulatory
framework is quite country specific in terms of import control and management of risks
linked to the introduction of new pests. An overview and comparison of the key features of
the plant health regimes in the selected countries is provided in the following table, and a
more detailed description of each third country system is provided in Annex 2.
The large majority of respondents to the general survey (MS CAs and stakeholders) consider
that the differences between the EU legislation and the legislation applied in third countries
have had a negative impact on EU production costs and competitiveness in trade but that
these impacts are moderate.
General survey results
Q10.3 Extent to which the differences between EU legislation and the legislation applied by key
international trading partners have had an impact on EU production costs and competitiveness in trade:
6 out of 23 MS CAs and 12 out of 28 stakeholders consider that differences between EU and TC standards have
a negative impact on EU production costs and competitiveness. (14 MS CAs and 13 stakeholders do not know)
Figure 3-22: Impact of difference in EU and third country phytosanitary standards on
EU production costs and competitiveness (survey results)
CAs
Stakeholders
Low
Moderate
High
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source : general survey results
The question of whether any of the regimes is demonstrably more effective and efficient
compared to another was also raised during the interviews (with third country representatives,
international organisations, MS CAs and stakeholders). It would appear that the EU is
generally perceived (particularly by EU stakeholders, but also some CAs) to follow an
approach that is generally more open to trade but at the same time higher risk from a
phytosanitary point of view, while the approach followed by major trading partners such as
the US and Australia is perceived to be stricter and more risk based/focused. However, it is
difficult to demonstrate this is the case with hard evidence, for example there is no systematic
comparable data on pest incursions as a result of trade in the various regions; even if the
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 269