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)
the application of the concept of regionalisation with the definition of protected
zones (PZs) at particular risk;
the introduction of systematic checks during marketing; and,
a system of Community financial assistance linked to financial liability rules for
consignor MS found to be at fault.
The key concepts of the system introduced by the new strategy in 1993 are essentially in
application today 23 . As it stands, the current CPHR aims to protect the EU territory against the
introduction and spread of regulated organisms which are harmful to plants or plant products.
It lays down specific requirements for imports of all plants and some plant products into the
EU and for internal movement of a limited number of plants within the EU. The fully
harmonized regime allows free movement of consignments produced within the EU or, after
import inspection, imported into the EU and at the same time allows for the recognition of
protected zones that are free from specific HOs occurring elsewhere in the EU.
The CPHR covers HOs, which according to Council Directive 2000/29/EC are considered to
mean: “any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants
or plant products”. The current quarantine list covers some 250 harmful organisms, and these
are listed in the Annexes to Directive 2000/29/EC (‗the Directive‘). This includes only
organisms directly injurious to plants and plant products, and does not cover organisms
harmful to human or animal health.
It is noted that unlike other areas in the remit of DG SANCO, food safety is not at stake in the
CPHR, because plant pests and plant diseases (HOs) are generally not infectious to humans or
animals and only exceptionally produce metabolites that are toxic to humans and animals 24 .
While the safety of plant protection products (PPPs) for human health is regulated strictly in
the EU, there may be indirect effects if there is a need for increased PPP application 25 to
control pests and diseases entering the Community, in case of the absence of quarantine
legislation or the failure to implement quarantine measures. Therefore, while possible
consequences to human health as such are covered in the PPP regime, this evaluation will
discuss the indirect potential impact on human health of the potentially increased need for the
use of PPPs in the case of failure of the CPHR to provide sufficient protection against new
pests and diseases. The CPHR and the Community plant protection regime share the objective
of promoting healthy and productive crops and to minimise environmental harm in achieving
this objective.
23 A key exception has been the planned official programme for coordinating and financing scientific / technical
activities with a view to developing appropriate diagnostic tools and harmonising these, which has not been
followed up through legislation to date (except specifically for some potato control Directives).
24 For example mycotoxins; however, none of the fungi that produce these has been considered for quarantine
listing since they are common worldwide. Ambrosia artemisifolia and oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea
processionea) are other potential examples of plant health issues with human health implications.
25 It is noted that this does not refer to the potential effects of the PPP due to the toxicity of the product as such
(which is subject to strict authorisation procedures at EU level) but on the risks linked to the increased volumes
of PPPs used following from the entry of new HOs and the incorrect usage/application of these PPPs.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 22