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)
Case study: US surveillance prioritisation programme (CAPS)
In the US, a nationwide pest-surveillance program (the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey – CAPS 283 ) is
managed cooperatively by USDA–APHIS and State Departments of Agriculture. Universities, industry groups,
and natural resource protection organizations are also partners in the program. The primary function of CAPS is
to survey, identify, and monitor pests of concern to U.S. agriculture and plant resources. To prioritize survey and
response efforts, CAPS maintains a comprehensive list of target species that are potential threats to the Nation‘s
agricultural and environmental resources. Each year, a range of 50-60 priority pests (e.g. 58 for the year 2010)
for the National Survey are identified by the National CAPS Committee, together with a number of State-level
discretionary surveys, among which the State CAPS Committees determine survey priorities for their States. The
method followed in order to rank the pest is the Analytic Hierarchy Process 284 , which prioritizes pests on the
basis of the following criteria:
Economic impact:
- Foreign trade
- Production costs and domestic trade
- Public costs
Environmental impact
- Human health
- Health of native flora and fauna
- Health of livestock and pets
- Health of plants with aesthetic value
Impact to CAPS Program 285
- Survey feasibility
- Identification feasibility
The plan is co-financed by the Federal Government 286 and the States, through cooperative agreements (funds
provided to State Departments of Agriculture and other cooperators administered through the PPQ Regional
Offices). The funding allocation process is linked to justifications from each State for: (I) infrastructure, (II)
surveys to address national priority pests, and (III) surveys to address pests of state concern. The overall funding
formula is as follows: Infrastructure (capped at $100,000, in certain cases to $150,000) + Priority Surveys
(minimum of 75 percent of survey dollars) + State Discretionary Surveys (up to 25 percent of survey dollars)
=Total funds awarded.
The National Survey Coordinator provides overall direction for the Program, and it is also responsible for the
Cooperative Agreement with Purdue University, which provides administrative and financial framework for the
National Agricultural Pest Information System 287 (NAPIS) database and websites. NAPIS collects data to help
plant health officials make policy and management decisions in the event of pest incursions (a list of contacts is
also available), evaluate market-access bids for U.S. exports, and justify quarantine measures to exclude
potentially foreign HOs.
283 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/survey2010.shtml
284 Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York.; Saaty, T. L. 1994.
Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
285 *This set of criteria was not used to create AHP Prioritized Pest List. Pests were ranked separately using these
criteria, and this information is intended to highlight needs for research and methods development and to be used
in combination with the AHP PPL to select high priority targets that are not excessively difficult or expensive to
survey and identify.
286 The annual PPQ Pest Detection ―line item‖ appropriation is the major funding source for CAPS. In 2009 the
budget for this line amounted to 31 million$.
287 http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/index.php
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 344