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) From the outset, the evaluation identified broad based support for fuller alignment to the IPPC standards (ISPM 5 and ISPM 11) and current practice in the field of IAS. This was confirmed by the conclusion of the interventions made at the February conference, notably that Directive 2000/29/EC should be used to include IAS of impact on plant health 273 , but at some point the line needs to be drawn on how much to include. For the most part there was consensus that the line should be drawn after option iii. On the other hand, there have not been any strong arguments against the explicit inclusion of some categories of IAS (under options ii and iii in particular) in the scope of the Directive, with several contributors indicating that this has de facto already occurred. In October 2009 a workshop was organised on IAS by the Hungarian NPPO with participation from 13 MS COPHs/NPPOs 274 , and its conclusions are taken into account in the analysis. The workshop noted the importance of the explicit inclusion of IAS in the Directive to provide clarification in the current scope. In this context, it was noted that more knowledge and EU wide clarification is required on how infestation/introduction/further spread of new invasive plants can be prevented, and that Article 16 of Directive 2000/29/EC need to be clarified and strengthened. Also, it was suggested that an IAS Code of Conduct for pests relevant for the environment should be considered in addition to regulation (i.e. a two level approach: general legal obligation for measures against relevant IAS and details specified in the Code), in order to provide more detail and flexibility if needed, although implementation may be a challenge. It should be noted that the scope of the IPPC comprises IAS pests included under options i, ii and iii. The scope of the Convention is however limited to plant health and does not include IAS pests impacting on human health only. In Pest Risk Analysis (ISPM No. 2), the impacts of IAS pests on human health are only taken into account in the context of the social impacts of a plant pest, along with its economic and environmental impacts. Inclusion of IAS pests impacting on human health as such would therefore expand the scope of the CPHR to beyond the protection of plant resources covered by the IPPC. In addition to classical pests such as insects and micro-organisms, ISPM No 2 specifically addresses the risks posed by plants as pests, biological control agents and living modified organisms, but not vertebrate pests (option v). Inclusion of these would thus also go beyond the scope of the Convention. 273 Some delegates highlighted that the definition of HO in Directive 2000/29/EC has been fully aligned with that of the IPPC, thus already today officially including IAS. 274 An Interactive International Workshop on Invasive Alien Species in EU countries was organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Hungary in Budapest between 6-8 October 2009, inviting COPHs and NPPO inspectors of EU MS and the neighbouring countries of Hungary. There were 40 participants from 13 EU MS (AT, BG, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IE, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI), including the Commission (DG SANCO) and a scientific officer responsible for the issue in the EPPO Secretariat. During the two sessions of the Workshop, plant health aspects of IAS, distribution, monitoring, control and legal regulations of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and experiences of control measures of western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) were discussed. The workshop has resulted in the following conclusions and proposals, and it was agreed that conclusions should be sent to the Presidency of the European Council. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 312
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Recommendation 1: Based on an analysis of the scope of the IPPC and the consensus view as it emerged in the process of the evaluation and the FCEC analysis, option iii [Inclusion of IAS plants with wider/environmental impacts (habitats and ecosystems) and/or economic impacts on wider range of stakeholders] is recommended, on the basis that it represents the best balance of advantages/disadvantages against anticipated impacts. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 313
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:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296: 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 345: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
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?