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) 5.8 Other suggestions for future improvements of the regime 5.8.1 Research and development and scientific advise The EUPHRESCO type of platforms is the correct tool for this coordination and should be established long term. Most of interviewees consider that if EU funding is stopped the platform may be endangered. The PRATIQUE research project, although still at too early phase to a allow an assessment of its outputs, is nonetheless expected to contribute significantly in improving the generic methodology for conducting PRAs including on economic aspects, in accordance with the requirements of the WTO- SPS Agreement and the guidelines of ISPM 11. The ongoing erosion of scientific and diagnostic expertise in the plant health domain needs to be stopped, among others by permanent support from the EU Framework Programmes for research and, for short term needs, a specific research budget for the CPHR. It is recommended that discussions and cooperation between SANCO/EFSA and EPPO continue with a view to identifying complementarities to cover the economic impact of the EU PRAs, complementing the EFSA role. Recommendation 10: The definition of a structural role for EUPHRESCO-like coordination of national research funding is recommended, with the establishment of a specific budget for this purpose. The evaluation highlighted a strong need for sufficient and stable EU and MS resources for funding research projects; for short term research needs, a structural budget within the CPHR could be established in addition to the FP7. It is recommended that discussions and cooperation between SANCO/EFSA and EPPO continue with a view to identifying complementarities to cover the economic impact of the EU PRAs, complementing the EFSA role. 5.8.2 Diagnostic laboratories This section summarises the findings of the evaluation on the potential establishment of EU-RLs, taking into consideration EQ17 (area G) of the ToR. EQ17. What would be the pros and cons of Community Reference Laboratories (CRLs)? The views of MS CAs and stakeholders on the future of the diagnostic networks in Europe for plant health were also elicited during the general survey. Results indicate strong support amongst MS CAs for the establishment of CRLs (now named EU-RLs). For the most part, stakeholders have not been able to take a clear position on these questions: Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 370
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) General survey results: 7.7. Diagnostic laboratories carrying out official analysis h. Should Community Reference Laboratories (CRLs) be established for plant health (similar to those existing for animal health under Regulation (EC) 882/2004)? The majority of MS CAs (21 out of 25, 3 do not know) agree that CRLs (s for plant health should be established. Stakeholders mostly do not know (18 out of 22), and 3 responded in favour. i. If CRLs were to be considered, for how many HOs would they be needed from a technical point of view? 10 MS CAs (out of 25, 8 do not know) believe CRLs should be established for >30 HOs, 5 for 10-10 HOs and 2 for < 2 HOs j. If CRLs were to be considered, which HOs should be targeted as a priority? MS CA responses: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 j1. HOs listed in Annexes IA and IIA of Directive 2000/29/EC j2. HOs listed in Annexes IB and IIB of Directive 2000/29/EC j3. HOs for which protected zones exist j4. HOs for which emergency measures are in place j5. HOs for which control directives are in place j6. HOs which are technically difficult to diagnose/detect j7. HOs which have a large phytosanitary and socio-… j8. Other criteria Yes No Do not know 7.9 How should organisational aspects be developed and improved in future to ensure the effective implementation of plant health provisions? Improve diagnostic infrastructure: 7.9.k. Consider the establishment of CRLs for priority organisms (to be defined) The majority (21 out of 23, 1 do not know) of MS CAs are in favour. Stakeholders mostly do not know (17 out of 22), 5 are in favour. 7.9.l. Intensify cooperation with EPPO 24 MS CAs are in favour (out of 25, 1 do not know). The majority of stakeholders are in favour (15 out 21, 6 do not know). Improve the training provided and the funds available for training: 7.9.m. Develop harmonised inspection methods / systems The majority of MS CAs (24 out of 25) and of stakeholders (16 out of 22, 6 do not know) are in favour. 7.9.n. Expand BTSF for plant health in general The majority of MS CAs (21 out of 24 (2 do not know) believe that BTSF should include also training for diagnosticians. 14 (out of 22, 6 do not know) consider that training for plant health in general should be expanded. 7.9.o. Expand BTSF to also include training for diagnosticians The majority of MS CAs (20 out of 25,3 do not know) believe that BTSF should include also training for diagnosticians.13 out of 24 stakeholders (8 do not know) consider that training for diagnosticians should be expanded. 7.9.p. Promote co-operation between plant health inspectors to ensure effective risk targeting and harmonised application of the CPHR 23 out of 24 (1 do not know), 22 out 24 (2 do not know) Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 371
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:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354: Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 403: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 419 and 420: Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?