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)
5.3 Prevention strategies intra-EU (general surveillance and reporting)
A clear outcome of the evaluation is the need for more and better prevention in the system.
Prevention measures start with controls at external borders (and before that, from compliance to
requirements by the exporting country). The monitoring of the internal EU territory is another
key factor that allows a quick action in case HOs have been introduced. Improving prevention
strategies touches upon the extent to which there is a need to prioritise and how to achieve this,
so as to better target measures, in view of the evolving challenges and current resource
constraints. The emphasis of any prioritisation would be to improve prevention, and does not
therefore imply a narrowing of the scope of the regime.
Measures within the EU could also be strengthened for a more coordinated and consistent
approach than is the case at present, and to face up to the new challenges.
5.3.1 Background
As discussed in section 3.3, currently MS conduct surveillance programs for HOs listed in
emergency and control measures, and for those for which PZs are established. Additionally, MS
conduct voluntarily surveillance on HOs of priority of the country. This approach has shown the
limited benefits for the EU as a whole, as clearly a prioritization based on national interests is
followed.
Given the importance of an updated knowledge on the pest status in the EU, a more coordinated
approach is needed. This need emerged clearly from the survey, from the interviews and from
the conference. Monitoring of the EU territory is crucial to identify and tackle risks at an early
stage and prevent the spread to other areas or MS of the EU. The early detection of outbreaks, in
conjunction with the pest status, also allows adjusting the level of action in a timely way. This
also needs to be done in a harmonized way, in order to reach uniform interpretation and
comparability of the results. The broad majority of MS indicated in this context that that explicit
EU legislation for general surveillance and monitoring for listed and non listed HOs should be
introduced. In the context of limited resources, however, it is not realistic to demand MS to have
in place surveillance plan for all the listed HOs. Thus, prioritization on a more common basis is
needed.
As regarding prioritisation, several views are expressed. Some MS point out that priority should
be common at EU level, i.e. legislation on mandatory surveillance should be adopted with the
aim of establishing obligatory active monitoring for some listed HOs with the highest priority for
the EU. Other MS suggest the need of a prioritization at EU level, but regionalised as
appropriate.
It is stressed by several MS that any adoption of measures in order to improve surveillance
would have an impact on financial and human resources, which are currently already limited;
some MS in this context asked for a specific plan for co-financing from the Community.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 338