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)
Table 4-1: CPHR SWOT analysis
Strengths
Regime successful in preventing the entry or limiting the spread of major
HOs in the last 15 years ( e.g. potato diseases);
Achievement of the internal market for plants and plant products (i.e. free
circulation);
―Open‖ approach of the regime has avoided import trade disruption;
Efficiency of the regime in managing – with a relatively limited budget – the
introduction and spread of HOs with potentially high economic, social and
environmental impacts.
Opportunities
Review of approach in animal health (new EU Animal Health Strategy) and
food safety sector (Regulation 882/2004) provide opportunity for the
development and application of new concepts on plant health, with a view to
improving prevention (e.g. prioritisation and responsibility sharing);
Better coordination with Seed and Propagating Materials regime;
Several concepts tried and tested in other sectors could provide model for
development in plant health (e.g. diagnostics, NRLs/EU-RLs, delegation of
responsibilities, cost and responsibility sharing schemes);
Raise public and political awareness on plant health, by balancing objective
of agricultural productivity with the objective of supply of public good;
Create/strengthen networks of expertise at research and diagnostic levels, by
relying on existing networks (e.g. EUPHRESCO) or setting up new forms of
collaborations (e.g. NRLs with a view of establishing EU-RLs);
Increase stakeholder involvement in among others surveillance, risk
management;
Further alignment to international standards (IPPC, WTO-SPS).
Weaknesses
Regime only partly successful in preventing the entry or limiting the spread
of major HOs in the last 15 years (PWN, Anoplophora chinensis), or even
failed this objective (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Diabrotica virgifera);
Lack of incentives for stakeholders and MS authorities for effective
implementation and weak involvement of stakeholders;
Action provided mainly a posteriori / limited prevention;
Action frequently taken too late, leading to loss of efficiency and
effectiveness in implementation;
Limited use of risk analysis, and constraints in PRA availability, for more
efficient use of limited resources;
Limited visibility, No structural consideration of economic impacts (costs /
benefit analysis);
Eroded credibility of plant passport and protected zones concepts;
Communication and public awareness of plant health issues;
Variety and divergence of interests amongst MS and stakeholders (sectors).
Threats
Budgetary constraints continue to affect the availability of resources/staff
to implement CPHR measures effectively (at all levels: EU, MS, regions);
Diversity of problems and interests between MS and strong MS focus on
national problems and interests undermines EU wide perspective and need
for solidarity;
The erosion of classical scientific expertise threatens future capacity of
diagnostics (at present very variable at MS level and depending on HOs)
and pest risk analysis;
Unless the CPHR puts more emphasis on prioritisation and
prevention/early reaction, the sustainability of the solidarity regime to
address a rising number of emerging risks and potential outbreaks remains
questionable, in view of the significant challenges anticipated by change in
trade volumes and patterns and climate change,;
Political support for plant health will always lag behind higher profile
issues potentially affecting human health and of major economic
consequence, such as animal health and food safety.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 292