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
responsibilities and costs
(medium) related to obligation to
eradication.
becomes more effective than
option ii.
NGOs).
iv. Inclusion of
IAS with
important
human
health
impacts
Impact via plants on
human health (primary
impact is human health;
plant health impacts may
be secondary or indirect).
Examples: Ambrosia
artemisifolia,
Thaumatopoea
processionea, and
Toxicodendron radicans
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).
IPPC and EPPO application of current definitions and current practice stop here;
Feedback both from MS CAs and stakeholders suggests that inclusion of IAS to the Directive should stop here.
Low-medium.
Provides a single policy
framework within a harmonized
philosophical approach for
dealing with such IAS, which are
not currently covered by any
other regime (except perhaps
public health policy?);
Could theoretically attract
additional resources;
Difficult to manage under the CPHR
if primary impact is human health, not
plant health. Although NPPOs have
the tools to run a control or
eradication program, a multi-sectoral
approach is needed 275 ;
Mixed plant health / human health
competence required in comitology
(plant health CAs do not have the
expertise nor the competence for
regulation of human health related
HOs);
v. Inclusion of
IAS
vertebrates
with impact
on plants
Examples: Sciurus
carolinensis
Wider group of
vertebrates including
birds, fish, mammals, etc.
Big jump: moving in the direction
of the DG ENV IAS strategy.
High.
Inclusion of more species, more
effort, higher protection.
COM: Higher costs for resources
Provides a single policy
framework within a harmonized
philosophical approach for
dealing with such IAS, which are
not currently covered by any
other regime;
Wide scope of inclusion is a
constraint. Assessing costs /benefits
becomes more complex as scope
widens;
The wider the scope the more
potential for conflict over priority
setting;
275
This was the conclusion of Budapest workshop on IAS with regards to Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 316