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)
IAS: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages
impact on
plant
health]
application rather than extension
of scope.
iii. Explicit
inclusion of
IAS plants
with wider
environment
al impacts
and/or
economic
impacts on
wider range
of
stakeholders
Indirect impact:
interference/ reservoir of
pathogens/ post harvest
effects. Examples:
Cyperus esculentus;
Striga spp.
Impact via plants on
plant health and
biodiversity extends to
habitats and ecosystems.
Would include aquatic
plants. Examples:
Hydrocotyle
ranunculoides,
Eichhornia crassipes
(water hyacinth);
COM: Increase in management
costs (low).
MS CAs: Increase in management
costs (low).
Stakeholders: Increase in
responsibilities and costs (low).
The above increase in costs has to
be balanced against the potential
benefits of prevention/early
detection (control at import), and
increased productivity for growers
(see Table below)
Medium.
To manage, IAS related PRAwork
and regulation should be
focused on a limited number of
IAS (prioritisation needed). With
some prioritisation, expected to
add 10-15 new HOs in the lists
(including those of option ii).
Impact could be additional but
there could also be substitution
depending on change in
prioritisation.
COM: Increase in management
costs (medium).
MS CAs: Increase in management
costs (medium).
Stakeholders: Increase in
various actors involved is
feasible;
Strong support from
MS/stakeholders;
Paves the way for more
coordinated response to broader
EU strategy on IAS;
Prepares system for more
effective and consistent response
to future challenges and increased
risk of IAS incursion (due to
climate change and globalisation)
More serious risks would be dealt
with in a harmonized regime
(CPHR). It would be more
relevant (CPHR provides
umbrella of resources and tools),
more effective and efficient (than
having multiple regimes (PH is
the only harmonised regime;
ENV not fully harmonized);
Fuller alignment to IPPC/EPPO
(than option ii), allowing fuller
EU engagement in international
fora;
May provide a stronger political
rationale for support and wider
public acceptance;
Strong support from MS/ less
from PH stakeholders;
Response to future challenges
Widening pool of stakeholders (which
some existing stakeholders may
consider a dilution) with diverse
interests and capacities;
Widening range of CAs involved
(competences and interests);
Potential pool of HOs for assessment
of risk likely to increase very
substantially (at MS level), while the
ability to look at these risks would be
a limiting factor, therefore some
prioritisation is needed;
Degree of uncertainty for risk
assessment higher for IAS than for
(agriculture) quarantine pests;
May be less feasible to share
responsibilities between the larger
pool of various actors involved
(including ideally wider public and
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 315