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) 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
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 5.4 Emergency action 5.4.1 Background Article 16 of Directive 2000/29/EC sets out the basis for emergency measures at EU level (or initial control measures taken by MS). Measures are taken and reviewed/revised (or repealed) at the Standing Committee on Plant Health on the basis of Pest Risk Analysis (PRAs). The need for more rapid action in emergency situations was repeatedly identified in the context of the various themes covered by the evaluation, both with regards to the imminent danger posed by imports from third countries and other findings or outbreaks within the EU. In many cases there is a call for action in advance of any emergency situation arising, in particular in the form of horizon scanning and contingency plans, the uptake of which is currently very variable amongst MS. The need to find an appropriate forum for coordinating emergency action at EC level has also been identified, and the idea of an EU/MS emergency team has been put forward in the context. This can draw on the experience of similar initiatives in the animal health sector, where an EU/MS Veterinary emergency team (based in SANCO with support from an extensive network of MS experts 288 ) was created following the CAHP evaluation. General survey results (Q 6.8): What should be done in future at EU/MS level to ensure better preparedness to prevent and control the introduction/spread of HOs? 25 out of 26 MS CAs (6 out of 7 stakeholders) expressed the need for an improvement of the availability of up-to-date MS Contingency Plans; Improvement of the knowledge of private operators in the production and trade chain is sought by 23 MS CAs (6 out of 7 stakeholders); The development of an EU emergency team is sought by 19 out of 26 MS CAs (5 do not know) and 8 out of 27 stakeholders (9 do not know); 19 out of 26 MS CAs (4 do not know) are in favour of introducing new legal instruments for rapid intervention by the EC in case of outbreaks of new HOs (6 out of 26 stakeholders, 5 do not know); The improvement of the knowledge on HOs of private operators in the production and trade chain is advocated by 23 out of 26 MS CAs (3 do not know) and by 22 stakeholders (out of 26, 1 do not know); The improvement of the import control system to deal with emergency situations is sought by 22 out of 26 MS CAs (1 do not know) and by 17 stakeholders (out of 27, 1 do not know). 5.4.2 Options and analysis In this context, the options identified for further consideration are as follows: i. Status quo, with improvements; ii. Horizon scanning; iii. Compulsory development of contingency plans according to harmonized framework; iv. Minimum mandatory emergency actions (e.g. definition of demarcated areas, intensifying monitoring); 288 For more information on the veterinary emergency team see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/cvet_en.htm Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 345
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:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 377: 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?