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) Interviews were carried out with a number of experts and representatives of EU professional associations, international organisations and with the Commission services. This included a total of about 50-60 organisations. In most cases, interviews were conducted by a team of FCEC experts and have involved significant organisation and preparation; on their part, many of the organisations interviewed have involved a group of experts in the interview. The target group for the interviews covered the full range of stakeholder interests in the sector of plant health, including growers, breeders, and traders for the various products sectors, the forest and wood packaging industry, landowners, logistic companies, plant protection industry, insurance sector, public gardens and parks, and NGOs. A full list of the European professional associations consulted during the evaluation is provided in Annex 6. At the level of other EU and international organisations, meetings have been held with the EFSA, the EPPO, the IPPC (both at secretariat level and at panel level), IRU, OIBC, EUPHRESCO 18 , PRATIQUE 19 (full list in Annex 6). Interviews with the Commission services included relevant DGs (DG SANCO, DG ENV, DG AGRI, DG TRADE, DG TAXUD, DG RESEARCH, DG BUDGET, and Secretariat General). Interviews were conducted with a range of relevant desk officers within these DGs, including the members of the SG. Within DG SANCO, meetings have also been held with the FVO plant health department. NGOs targeted by the survey and interviews have generally shown limited interest in this policy area, despite repeated FCEC efforts to stimulate interest for an interview. This is mainly due to the fact that the targeted NGOs (8 organisations in total) cover a wide range of subjects and plant health does not appear to be a priority dossier at the moment. This lack of interest can also be interpreted as a finding that there would not appear to be any significant negative positions or views on the current CPHR. Further interviews with the national members of key organisations amongst the above were conducted during the field visits in the selected MS, to the extent these had not already been covered by the EU association group interview, and as applicable and appropriate under each theme and for each MS. 1.4.5 MS field visits The organisation of the field visits in 12 MS aimed to focus on the implementation of the policy in each MS amongst the 5 case study themes (surveillance and categorisation of HOs; import regime; intra-Community movement (plant passport system); protected zones; control and emergency measures for outbreaks and new findings). MS were selected on the basis of relevance to these areas. The field visits involved face-to-face interviews with relevant organisations (CAs and stakeholders), and took place from November to early February. 18 EUPHRESCO is a project funded by the EU FP6 ERA-NET (European Research Area – Network) scheme from 2006-2010. It addresses the coordination of the funding by MS of plant health research. 19 The PRATIQUE project is supported by the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development: It addresses the "development of more efficient risk analysis techniques for pests and pathogens of phytosanitary concern", in the framework of sustainable production and management of biological resources from land, forest and aquatic environments. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 8
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Table 1-3: Selection of MS for field visits and relevance to thematic case studies MS Timing (a) Evaluation theme France Nov/Dec 2, 4 and 5 Germany Dec/Jan 3 Italy Jan 2 (3), 4, 5 Lithuania Dec 3, (to cover specific issues for the Baltic MS in the other themes) NL Nov/Dec 2, 3, 5 Poland Dec 1, 3 Portugal Nov 1, 3, 5 (PWN), (other pests?) Bulgaria (b) Early Feb 2, 5 Spain Dec/Jan 1, 4, 5 DK Dec 1 Sweden Jan 2, 4 UK Dec/Jan 2, 1, 4 Evaluation themes: 1. Surveillance and categorisation of HOs; 2. Import regime; 3. Intra-Community movement; 4. Protected zones and regionalisation; 5. Control measures for outbreaks and new findings. (a) Indicates period during which interviews took place. Depending on location, some MS visits were planned at intervals rather than in continuum (e.g. France, Spain, Germany and UK interviews). (b) In late December it was clarified that Romania would be unable to proceed with the field visit and was replaced by Bulgaria. 1.4.6 Comparison with third countries This element of the evaluation involved interviews with third country representatives for the five third countries covered by this evaluation (US, Canada, Argentina, Israel, Thailand), and desk research including the analysis of additional literature and data provided. The selection of third countries was decided on the following criteria: US as a large exporter to the EU with a fundamentally different approach to plant health legislation for imports into the US; Canada as similar to the US but less stringent; Thailand as an exporter to the EU with an important number of interceptions by the EU in recent years on plants and plant products imported from Thailand; Israel as its plant health legislative structure is quite similar to the EU but with a large number of interceptions by the EU on plants and plant products imported from Israel; Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 9
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 25 and 26: 7. Implementation of control and em
Page 41: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 49 and 50: Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 53 and 54: Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 63 and 64: Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 93 and 94:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
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:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
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?