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)
The main driver for establishing bilateral SPS agreements is the policy of the Commission to
negotiate as much as possible bilateral trade agreements. They all include SPS chapters
focusing on market access in both ways. It should be noted that third countries tend not to
apply the IPPC rules in the same manner as the EU, i.e. in terms of identifying/listing HOs
and adopting risk mitigating measures for these HOs. Therefore, it is the EU that mostly
encounters export problems because of the system in place in key trading partners (Australia,
US, Mexico etc.) where a trade restrictive approach is being followed. For example, Mexico
is very strict on PH issues and the demands made on the EU are considered excessive. Issues
with the US include lengthy negotiations for EU exports of potted plants, ongoing for 25-30
years.
By signing a phytosanitary agreement, the EU aims to provide a more formal framework for
accepting EU plant health policy, but also IPPC rules, to facilitate EU exports to third
countries. For example, following its agreement with the EU, Chile was forced to change its
legislation to align to IPPC approach (i.e. define list of pests and then take risk mitigating
measures). However, this has proven more difficult with Mexico, so the regime continues
with risk assessments for each potential import concerning each product, each origin for each
pest followed by strict import measures and possible risk mitigating measures (certificates,
pre-export checks, chemical and heat treatment etc) instead of laying down the import
conditions for each commodity in relation to certain pests.
Although the distribution of responsibilities on import and export matters in relation to SPS
issues is shared at the level of the European Commission between DG SANCO and DG
TRADE, the objectives work in the same direction, and mainly aim to facilitate EU exports to
third countries. Import and export issues are related in terms of the need to demonstrate
reciprocity on trade matters in the discussion with third countries: if the EU wants third
countries to play by the rules, it should be able to demonstrate that it also plays by the rules.
As discussed in section 3.13, 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.
It is not only the approach followed by third countries, but also the approach followed by the
EU (CPHR) on internal trade and imports that affects the EU trading position in international
markets. As discussed in section 3.8, for EU exporters, EU plant health rules both on imports
and on internal trade can have substantial implications for the export of plants and plant
products, as follows:
The more pests are regulated, the higher the costs, but export is facilitated by
establishing confidence vis-à-vis trading partners;
The slower measures are taken, the more barriers to trade as trading partners will
consider that effective action is not taken to prevent and control these new HOs.
Additionally, having in place effective eradication and control measures may impact
positively on trade in that it gives an advantage to the countries achieving this. Any importing
country will prefer to get its supplies supply from low risk areas, if prices are similar.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 300