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)
Plant Passport system: preliminary analysis of each option
Option: Description Impact Advantages Disadvantages
document template);
Partial (common
fields in free
document template);
Some distinction may be needed
between categories of plants, and
harmonisation pursued within
each category (rather than across
categories), but the number of
categories would be limited (e.g.
young plants versus others).
plant health document;
Easier to find information; could
result in reduced administrative
burden for private operators and
for NPPOs;
Facilitates inspections
Improve coordination between
NPPOs
in the case of full harmonisation;
In case of PP information is
included in trade documents,
redefinition of trade documents
May lose flexibility for specific
sectors with specific
requirements.
iii variant
iv. Setting up an EU
wide electronic
database
A variant to option iii
would be to replace PP
document by a health
mark or logo, with all the
necessary information
and details stored in an
electronic database.
To store electronically
plant passport related
information. Database
accessible only to CAs
and registered operators
(different access levels
and options could be
considered, as under
EUROPHYT or under
TRACES systems).
High.
Pre-requisite is full development
of electronic database to ensure
traceability (option iv).
High.
Actual costs to depend on
implementation.
Can result in potential savings if
used in conjunction with option
iii, to replace rather than add to
detailed information provided in
PP document, particularly with
variant to option iii) (logo/mark).
Full harmonisation;
Improves visibility (further than
PP), thus further product
traceability;
Simplification/modernisation of
current system;
Can draw from experience of
similar system used in animal
health (veterinary health mark +
TRACES)
Improves degree of transparency
between MS;
Improves traceability, especially
when combined with option iii);
Can contribute to simplification
of used in conjunction with
option iii, particularly its variant;
Facilitates updating, referencing
and exchanging information
between relevant parties;
Can draw from experience of
similar system used in animal
health (TRACES);
Costs of setting up and running
(option iv) can be very
substantial;
Only feasible in conjunction
with option iv)
Can carry significant costs
(depending on implementation);
Need to identify appropriate
body and resources (COM/MS)
for managing database
development, maintenance and
running;
Feasibility, given the large scope
of products/pests (compared to
animal health sector) is an issue.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 356