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)
Improving prevention at import: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
Higher costs to be balanced against the
potential longer term savings from more
targeted and early detection of risks
(compared to current situation).
To improve the proportionality and
cost/benefit of the measures,
consideration needs to be given to level of
risk and level of trade (case-by-case
approach).
similar approaches followed
by TCs (e.g. US, Australia:
PRAs through trade request,
but 90% of fresh produce
based on long-standing
agreed practices in TCs).
Gains from more efficient use
of inspection capacity.
iv. For plants for planting/PM strengthen measures:
a. Official post
entry
inspections
for latent
HOs
b. Collaborati
on with
country of
origin
―Official‖ refers to
form of inspection
and not agent (the
issue of whether the
agent would be a CA
or licensed private
sector inspector is not
addressed here).
Including via preexport
inspections
and/or FVO audits
where necessary (e.g.
on the basis of
repeated interceptions
for certain products
from certain origins,
Medium/high.
Costs will depend on implementation, e.g.
number of potential HOs and products to be
subjected to post entry inspections.
COM: Increase in management costs (low).
MS CAs: Higher costs for inspections (e.g. in
the NL, total costs for post-entry inspections
estimated to additional € 274,000 per year 279 ).
Higher costs to be balanced against potential
longer term savings from early detection of
risks (compared to current situation).
Low-medium-high.
Costs will depend on implementation, e.g.
collaboration as such will require some
increase in resources, but this would be
significantly higher if FVO inspections are to
be carried out, and even higher in the case of
pre-export inspections.
Higher costs to be balanced against the
Enables detection of latent
diseases, thus overcoming
weakness of current system;
Can draw from the experience
of similar approaches
followed by TCs (US and
Australia)
Potential long term savings
from early detection of risks;
Improved targeting of risks at
source, thus a more
preventive approach;
Carrying out FVO inspections
rather than pre-export
inspections may be more
feasible in the first instance,
due to high costs of the latter;
Feasibility depends on
structure of production/trade
and interactions between POs;
Traceability systems will need
to be put in place;
High throughput probes
alternative for checking for
pest presence but physical
access may be difficult;
Increase required in resources
could be substantial.
Experience has suggested preexport
inspections are
expensive with limited
benefits;
Increase required in resources
(e.g. FVO/SANCO etc.) could
be substantial.
279 Source: PRA on Anoplophora chinensis. In the NL about 130 nurseries grow Acer spp. from China and Japan. Assuming 2 visits per nursery per year with a
total time of 20 h needed per nursery, the total costs for post-entry inspection will be: 130 x 20 h x € 100/h = € 274,000. It is concluded that for the NL these costs
are relatively high compared to the total value of the imported Acer (3-6 million euro). Source: PRA Anoplophora chinensis, Plant Protection Service, Wageningen,
The Netherlands, September 2008
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 336