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) (as requested be ISPM 11 and ISPM 21 as well as by the WTO-SPS Agreement). In this context, the EC funded project PRATIQUE is expected to yield generic methodologies that will allow such analysis to be carried out on a more harmonised and systematic basis across the EU (first outputs of PRATIQUE expected in 2010); ISPM 16 (RNQPs): scope to review approach on positioning of RNQPs in EU legislation with a view to ensuring full alignment to ISPM 16; ISPM 4 (requirements for PFAs), ISPM 22 (requirements for ALPP) and ISPM 26 (recognition of PFAs and ALPPs): scope for review of EU concept of regionalisation (PZs) with a view to clarify positioning vis-à-vis the objectives, principles and requirements of ISPM 4, ISPM 22 and ISPM 26. Table 4-2: List of ISPM standards Adopted ISPMs Adoption (latest revision dates) ISPM No. 01: Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of 1993 (2006) phytosanitary measures in international trade ISPM No. 02: Framework for pest risk analysis 1995(2007) ISPM No. 03: Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control 1995 (2005) agents and other beneficial organisms ISPM No. 04: Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas 1995 ISPM No. 05: Glossary of phytosanitary terms 2008 ISPM No. 06: Guidelines for surveillance 1997 ISPM No. 07: Export certification system 1997 ISPM No. 08: Determination of pest status in an area 1998 ISPM No. 09: Guidelines for pest eradication programmes 1998 ISPM No. 10: Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest 1999 free production sites ISPM No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks 2001 (2004) and living modified organisms. ISPM No. 12: Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates 2001 ISPM No. 13: Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action 2001 ISPM No. 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management 2002 ISPM No. 15: Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade 2002 ISPM No. 16: Regulated non-quarantine pests: concept and application 2002 ISPM No. 17: Pest <strong>report</strong>ing 2002 ISPM No. 18: Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure 2003 ISPM No. 19: Guidelines on lists of regulated pests 2003 ISPM No. 20: Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system 2004 ISPM No. 21: Pest risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests 2004 ISPM No. 22: Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence 2005 ISPM No. 23: Guidelines for inspection 2005 ISPM No. 24: Guidelines for determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary 2005 measures ISPM No. 25: Consignments in transit 2006 ISPM No. 26: Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae) 2006 ISPM No. 27: Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests 2006 ISPM No. 28: Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests 2007 ISPM No. 29: Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence 2007 Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 298
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Source: FAO 265 4.2.2 Bilateral and international relations with third countries 266 EQ 26 What economic impacts do any differences in standards between EU producers and key international trading partners have on Community trade, and is there a need that EU societal concerns and legitimate factors would be better reflected in the implementation of international and bilateral rules? At the international level, plant health regimes are being seen as supporting tools to trade. The more pests are regulated, the higher the costs, but exports are facilitated by establishing trust vis-à-vis trading partners. Bilateral agreements are in place with key trading partners e.g. US, Canada, NZ, Switzerland, and the European Economic Area, but these for the moment include mainly SPS issues in relation to trade in live animals and animal products and to food safety. Phytosanitary issues are not yet covered by these agreements. Only the agreements with Switzerland, Mexico and Chile include a phytosanitary chapter. Discussions for the inclusion of a phytosanitary chapter are currently ongoing with Andean Community and South America, ASEAN countries, and at bilateral level with Korea, India, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and with Canada in the context of a CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) phytosanitary issues will be discussed. The bi-regional negotiations are much more difficult to conduct and slow-going, as the regions involved are often a political rather than economic region and may therefore have very different interests, concerns and approaches. It is also obvious that an unbalanced situation will be created when at one side the region is SPS wise highly integrated and the other region is not or hardly integrated in the SPS field. In such situation one party has access to one single market and the other party has only access to several fragmented markets. With Russia a partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) is in place. Negotiations are ongoing on a Deep and Comprehensive Agreement which includes a cooperation part and should also include in the future a FTA (including SPS), the latter being depending on the progress of the negotiations in the context of Russia‘s potential WTO accession . A series of memoranda of understanding (MoU) are currently in place to deal with EU exports of animals, plants and products including food products. One of the MoU's deals with transit through the EU, which is a key concern for Russia. One MoU signed in 2005 covers phytosanitary certification. 265 FAO (2007) Independent Evaluation of the Workings of the International Plant Protection Convention and its Institutional Arrangements 266 The distribution of responsibilities between Commission services in terms of bilateral and international agreements on SPS issues was outlined in section 2.4. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 299
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:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282: 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 331: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
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?