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)
General survey results
Q 10.1 To what extent is the current CPHR suitable to mitigate risks of future challenges, in particular the
control of new HOs entering or spreading in the EU as a consequence of climate change?
MS CAs
Stakeholders
Fully 4 out of 23 3 out of 30
Partly 15 out of 23 19 out of 30
Not at all 3 out of 23 3 out of 30
Do not know 1 5
Evidence of the partial success of the regime to respond to new challenges is the fact that the
current CPHR did not prevent some HOs to enter the EU (e.g. Anoplophora sp.,
Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, PWN), all of which indicate that new pathways that pose plant
health risks are discovered too late.
The key reason for this is that the current CPHR is the product of 30 years of evolution in the
legislation, but the original fundamental intervention logic was developed in the 1970s,
adapted to the Single Market objectives in the early 1990s, to suit the objectives that were
important at the time. As noted throughout the Report, the evaluation has found that as the
needs and challenges have evolved since then, there is a need for shift in objectives to adapt
measures to the new challenges. As it stands, therefore, the current CPHR is not fully suitable
to mitigate the risks of these new challenges, in particular the control of new HOs reaching or
spreading in the EU as a consequence of climate change. This is calling for a new approach to
the EU plant health policy, as discussed in section 5.
4.2 The international context
This section summarises the findings of the evaluation regarding the international context,
taking into consideration EQ 25 and EQ 26 (area K) of the ToR.
4.2.1 WTO-SPS Agreement and IPPC guidelines
EQ 25: Which IPPC guidelines and WTO-SPS rules should be better taken into account in
the CPHR?
The adoption of the WTO SPS Agreement is undoubtedly the most significant international
development relating to international plant health standards, therefore of impact to the CPHR,
in the last 15 years. Article 5.3 of the WTO-SPS Agreement stipulates consideration of
economic impact in the PRA, which is currently outside the remit of EFSA and largely
undertaken on an ad hoc basis as discussed in section 3. The PRATIQUE project is currently
investigating the development of generic methods for economic impact assessment, and the
EU needs to identify the best approach for fully complying with this obligation.
For plant health, the SPS Agreement refers to the standards, guidelines and recommendations
developed under the auspices of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). These
standards lay down requirements to contracting parties and their subordinate NPPOs, but are
not legally binding as such.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 296