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)
5.1.3 Options and analysis: natural spread
5.1.3.1 Background
As discussed in section 3.1.1, the concept of natural spread is not explicitly mentioned in
Directive 2000/29/EC 276 . This concept is however explicitly treated in the Solidarity Regime,
which clearly excludes from reimbursement cases of natural spread. The reason explaining
such exclusion lies in the basic principle of the Solidarity Regime, according to which a MS
may receive funding on the condition that it is not responsible for the appearance of the HO
on its territory. The two elements used to assess the non responsibility of the MS have been
the ―identification of the source of contamination‖ and, when the source of contamination is
not known, ―the non-introduction of the HO by natural spread‖.
The results of the general survey, the interviews and the MS field visits point clearly in the
direction of the need for an active prevention of natural spread. This reflects both the
acknowledged advantages of such action to effectively and efficiently address natural spread
and a perceived gap in early/preventive action. The issue here is how to address control of
natural spread, at which stage and with which tools (i.e. inclusion in the solidarity funds?).
Evidence, including notably from studies on Diabrotica virgifera (Dvv), and also PWN,
points to the difficulties of addressing natural spread when the spread has already attained
certain levels, and the need to act early to prevent these levels from being reached; it is noted
that recent research on Dvv suggests that when Dvv is dispersing by natural spread,
eradication is almost impossible and that the only feasible action is containment.
In the definition of natural spread that appears to be commonly followed, ‗natural‘ is defined
as not related to human activity, whether the ‗unnatural‘ is related to human activity.
5.1.3.2 Options for consideration
In this context, the options identified for further consideration are as follows:
i. Status quo;
ii. Inclusion in scope of regime of measures concerning presence (in addition to
movement, which is current focus);
iii. Inclusion of prevention measures (for natural spread) in solidarity regime.
Option iii goes a decisive step further than option ii by making solidarity funding eligible for
natural spread in specific cases. The implementation of this option is linked to the application
of several other principles and conditions, as presented in the Solidarity Regime evaluation as
follows:
276 Article 16 of Directive 2000/29/EC indicates that: „Each Member State shall immediately notify in writing the
Commission and the other Member States of the presence in its territory of any of the harmful organisms listed
in Annex I, Part A, Section I or Annex II, Part A, Section I or of the appearance in part of its territory in which
their presence was previously unknown of any of the harmful organisms listed in Annex I, Part A, Section II or in
Part B or in Annex II, Part A, Section II or in Part B. It shall take all necessary measures to eradicate, or if that
is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 320