2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) The possibilities of involving other organisations in surveillance should be considered, it is suggested that public green/forest management organisations may play a role in this sense for HOs in public and private green. Finding an appropriate forum for coordinating all these actions at EC level will also be needed. General survey results (Q 1.4): What should be done in future to improve the scope and objectives of the CPHR? - 17 out of 26 MS CAs (1 do not know) and 18 out of 32 stakeholders (6 do not know) are in favour of introducing mandatory surveillance for listed HOs. General survey results (Q 2.7): What should be done in future to improve surveillance of HOs? - The majority of MS CAs (18 out of 25, 4 do not know) and 19 (out of 25 stakeholders, 2 do not know) are against the increase of number of HOs; - 11 MS CAs (out of 25, 4 do not know) and 14 out of 25 stakeholders (5 do not know) are in favour of decreasing the number of listed HOs; - 10 MS CAs (out of 25, 5 do not know) and 11 out of 26 (6 do not know) stakeholders are in favour of changing the approach for structuring Annex I and II; - 21 out of 25 MS CAs (1 do not know) and 22 out of 26 stakeholders (3 do not know) expressed a preference for focusing surveillance on priority HOs, on the basis of phytosanitary risk and significant socio-economic impact; - 19 out of 25 MS CAs are in favour of introducing explicit Community legislation for global surveillance/monitoring for listed/not listed HOs (4 do not know). 13 out of 26 stakeholders are against (9 do not know). - 21 out of 25 MS CAs (11 out of 26 stakeholders, 4 do not know) underlined the need for reinforcement of phytosanitary import control; - 19 out of 25 MS CAs (2 do not know) 15 out of 26 stakeholders (5 do not know) seek the involvement of persons/organisations not belonging to the CA in surveillance and rapid alert/early warning systems; - The need for improved staff resources/training for national authorities is supported by 24 out of 25 MS CAs and 20 out of 25 stakeholders (1 do not know); the same result is reported with regards to enhancement of capacity building in MS by 25 MS CAs (16 out of 25 stakeholders, 5 do not know); - 18 out of 24 MS CAs (3 do not know) and 17 out of 26 (7 do not know) stakeholders are in favour of developing a notification system for outbreaks and new findings similar to the RASFF. 5.3.2 Options and analysis In this context, the options identified for further consideration are as follows (options are presented in order of progressive expansion of scope as we move from ii to v 280 ): i. Status quo (with emphasis on improving enforcement); ii. Development of common principles and guidelines for harmonized surveillance and reporting; iii. General surveillance mandatory at EC level for priority HOs (other than Emergency Measures and Control Directives) (agreed at EC level and carried out by MS; covering areas where pests could be established): iv. Introduction of co-financing for surveillance. 280 Each subsequent option includes and expands on scope of preceding option. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 339
Page 1 and 2:
I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322: Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 323 and 324: Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 371: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 419 and 420: Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?