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)
General survey results (Q 4.7 CAs / Q 4.5 stakeholders):
What should be done in future at EU/MS level to ensure that plant health rules make a greater contribution to
improved and safe intra-Community trade in plants and plants products?
- All MS CAs (25 MS) that responded to this element of the survey and 19 stakeholders (out 24, 5 do not
know) are against abolition of the plant passport system;
- 24 out of 25 MS CAs (1 do not know) agreed on the need for a revision of the system (9 out of 25
stakeholders, 10 do not know); 25 MS CAs (out 26, 1 do not know) are in favour of harmonization (18 out
of 25 stakeholders, 5 do not know);
- 24 MS CAs (out of 26, 2 do not know) highlight need for improvement of risk analysis in current system
(20 out of 24 stakeholders, 3 do not know);
- 19 out of 25 MS CAs (1 do not know, 6 out of 24 stakeholders, 4 do not know) are in favour of tightening
up rules and increasing the number of official inspections, while none of the MS CAs and only 2 out of 25
stakeholders (7 do not know) are suggesting a decrease in number of official checks or relaxation of rules;
- 19 out of 25 MS CAs (4do not know)are in favour of setting up an EU-wide e-database of plant passport
information (15 out of 25 stakeholders, 5 do not know);
- 14 out of 26 MS CAs (3 do not know) are in favour of dropping the option that plant passport can consist
of two documents (4 out of 24 stakeholders, 12 do not know);
- 13 out of 25 MS CAs (3 do not know) would like to modify the system for exceptions of small producers
(12 out of 24 stakeholders, 9 do not know);
- 13 out of 25 MS CAs (2 do not know) are in favour of modifying the system of exceptions for final
consumption products (12 out of 24 stakeholders, 9 do not know);
- 13 out of 26 MS CAs (3 do not know) are in favour of expanding the scope of plants/plant products for
which plant passports are required (3 out of 25 stakeholders, 11 do not know);
- 13 out of 25 MS CAs (6 do not know) are in favour of simplifying documentation requirements (19 out of
25 stakeholders, 4 do not know);
- 13 out of 26 MS CAs (4 do not know) are in favour of attaching the plant passport to the individual plants
or smallest units, (2 out of 25 stakeholders, 9 do not know);
- 12 out of 26 MS CAs (1 do not know) are in favour of improving the producer registration system (10 out
of 25 stakeholders, 2 do not know);
- 25 out of 26 MS CAs (and 18 out of 24 stakeholders, 4 do not know) agree on the need of an improvement
of staff resources and training for national authorities, 23 out of 26 MS CAs (1 do not know) to improve
resources for implementation of requirements (22 out of 25 stakeholders, 3 do not know).
5.5.2 Options and analysis
In this context, the options identified for further consideration are as follows:
i. Status quo (with emphasis on improving enforcement);
ii. Revise the scope of application, in terms of:
a. Adjust and define application specificities, e.g. lot or individual plant, source and
species to improve transparency and administrative manageability;
b. Define stage of marketing chain to which plant passports should apply (chain
extends from importer/grower to final consumer);
iii. Harmonise plant passport document;
iv. Setting up an EU wide database.
The evaluation results identified a strong need for improving the current system. As it stands,
the system was found to have met its trade objectives (facilitating trade within the EU) but to
have significant shortcomings in ensuring that the plant health objectives are being met. In
particular, the current system in many instances was not found to provide sufficient
guarantees that phytosanitary conditions are being met, either by the products to which plants
passports are being attached, or by the operators authorised to issue plant passports (due inter
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 352