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) Table 3-34: Production and trade of selected commodities, EU and selected TCs, 2007 Production (MT) Production ($1000) Export Quantity (tonnes) Export Value (1000 $) Import Quantity (tonnes) Import Value (1000 $) Maize Canada 11,648,700 117,679 485,786 130,182 2,579,130 462,847 European Union 48,798,146 1,299,008 13,131,385 3,662,666 23,867,083 6,310,231 USA 331,175,072 20,891,120 57,014,420 10,099,898 334,398 257,340 Soybeans Canada 2,695,700 494,571 1,868,332 633,907 212,851 63,163 USA 72,860,400 14,910,080 29,840,182 10,016,225 275,703 96,766 European Union 1,777,098 639,335 17,236,647 5,957,705 Wheat Australia 13,039,000 1,382,139 14,684,211 3,887,832 25 21 Canada 20,054,000 2,275,904 17,551,674 4,359,492 25,125 6,811 European Union 120,103,234 9,821,794 29,573,118 7,684,261 27,353,543 7,515,596 USA 55,822,700 7,698,642 32,946,902 8,344,749 2,345,624 501,502 Cottonseed Australia 387,800 73,245 39,515 12,345 0 0 Canada 0 0 8,424 1,870 European Union 179,681 61,748 226,720 87,466 United States of America 574,857 122,426 3,415 1,655 Apples Australia 270,476 77,686 4,656 6,351 0 0 Canada 405,089 116,349 38,890 33,610 180,477 178,811 European Union 10,534,587 2,982,318 3,451,258 2,770,262 3,421,795 3,174,817 USA 4,237,730 1,217,161 663,465 651,292 206,600 170,184 Barley Australia 5,920,000 353,038 1,840,143 451,357 44 85 Canada 10,983,900 256,967 1,949,933 452,437 53,203 9,646 European Union 57,659,924 1,609,450 12,670,918 3,193,789 7,092,662 1,751,232 USA 733,225 160,614 458,134 100,909 Cotton lint Australia 274,000 406,747 327,599 466,414 0 0 USA 4,181,810 6,207,813 3,259,379 4,580,339 3,661 7,706 European Union + 242,486 340,124 433,329 656,549 Grapes Australia 1,530,439 709,970 40,156 78,114 12,003 38,430 European Union 25,096,075 12,191,010 987,858 1,845,155 1,579,677 3,029,913 USA 6,384,090 2,961,579 386,677 704,104 514,043 960,666 Potatoes Australia 1,211,988 154,621 25,538 12,214 86 37 Canada 4,999,424 677,519 610,142 169,349 172,373 76,629 European Union 63,778,523 7,393,508 7,019,881 2,516,950 6,640,912 2,339,638 USA 20,373,267 2,773,520 295,060 134,024 501,590 126,862 Tomatoes Australia 296,035 70,139 3,495 8,925 1,785 3,742 Canada 821,850 194,720 125,209 271,280 196,610 267,359 European Union 16,231,681 3,651,099 2,493,616 3,802,162 2,666,760 4,246,135 USA 14,185,180 3,360,895 245,315 311,067 1,070,808 1,220,498 Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 272
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Production (MT) Production ($1000) Export Quantity (tonnes) Export Value (1000 $) Import Quantity (tonnes) Import Value (1000 $) Oranges Australia 470,673 82,716 128,322 125,924 9,858 15,694 European Union 5,960,071 1,039,561 2,121,697 1,747,057 2,868,264 2,305,208 USA 7,357,000 1,292,919 341,914 271,151 115,104 121,479 Rapeseed Australia 1,065,000 301,115 210,122 85,539 265 627 Canada 9,601,100 2,545,259 5,363,650 2,117,432 202,270 75,922 European Union 18,431,154 4,819,528 4,936,764 2,026,274 5,330,164 2,181,816 USA 375,830 114,127 636,287 241,816 Source: FAOSTAT Table 3-35: Trade in forest products in the EU and in selected TCs, 2008 Import Value (US $„000) Export Value ($„000) Australia 2,101,224 1,726,445 Canada 4,922,143 24,939,239 United States of America 24,410,964 22,460,431 European Union 108,404,813 115,762,957 Source: FAOSTAT Notwithstanding the above important differences in the structure of production and trade between the EU and the selected third countries, the relatively unique EU context should also be highlighted. This includes the historical development of the regime out of the national MS plant health systems, the fact that it has more ‗porous‘ borders than e.g. Australia, and has more endemic problems due to the very much longer history of trade, as well as the range of climatic conditions and plant production covered in the EU-27. All these factors increase the demands and complexity of the approach that would be appropriate for effective plant health risk management in the EU. It is generally acknowledged that the current system of plant health controls in international trade is based on mutual trust between countries‘ NPPO authorities and other countries‘ regulatory systems. This general perception was confirmed by the feedback from the selected third countries, but also the EPPO and the IPPC interviews, and the review of the Commission‘s approach on trade and bilateral agreements. More analysis on the implications of the CPHR for EU exporters and transit trade is provided in section 3.8, and on the wider context of the EU international and bilateral relations in section 4.2.2. In terms of pest risk management in the case of outbreaks, it is noted that, in the context of PRATIQUE, a review of eradication and containment campaigns was undertaken covering some 171 campaigns around the world; it was concluded that there was no significant difference in the outcomes between European and non-European eradication campaigns. Out of the 64 European eradication campaigns covered by the review, 41% were successful, 22% are likely to be successful, whereas 21% are likely to fail or failed altogether (16%). Out of Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 273
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:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 305: 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 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
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?