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) Figure 2-1: CPHR intervention logic (past) Source: FCEC Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 24
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) The current CPHR limits the Community financial contribution on measures taken by MS to eradicate and control HOs specifically to the spread through movement (Article 23.1). This effectively excludes natural spread, at least as a single factor for the spread of HOs. It can be argued that the wider scope of the CPHR covers natural spread, for example under the notification rules of Article 16, although no Community financing is envisaged in this case. The need for further clarification on the scope of the CPHR regarding natural spread is discussed in section 3.1.1. The current CPHR is limited to invasive alien species (IAS) that cause harm to plant and plant products, which is a narrower definition than that followed by the CBD 26 (“invasive alien species” means an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity, where “Alien species” refers to a species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce). The need for further clarification on the scope of the CPHR regarding IAS is discussed in section 5.1.2. As indicated in the intervention logic, the focus of the CPHR on direct injury to plants and plant products from HOs introduced and spread through movement has historically been driven by the global objectives of safeguarding commercial agricultural crops rather than wider environmental or societal objectives. In recent years however, as will be discussed further in the following sections, there has been a de facto shift towards a widening of the global objectives beyond Article 37 of the Treaty as such. This has been brought about by the need to address new pathways and pests as well as by newly emerging risk factors (notably climate change and increasing trade).It has also been driven by the presence of pests in noncommercial and non-agriculture sectors and particularly by citizens' perceptions and expectations on plant health in this regard. The evaluation therefore seeks to address whether the historical objectives of the CPHR, as specified in the Directive and associated legal basis, are still being met and whether they are still appropriate (EQ1). Issues of increasing concern to society in the context of the global objective for the future CPHR may have a wider coverage (including objectives already addressed in Article 37 of the Treaty): Protecting the environment (prevention of entry of new HOs and diseases helps limiting the use of pesticides 27 ), including the possible impacts of climate change on the spread and introduction of new or already existing HOs; Ensuring competitiveness and the sustainability of European agriculture and rural sectors (plant health measures to sustain economic growth, employment and rural economies against the negative effects of harmful organisms), provided the cost-benefit 26 CBD Guiding principles (CBD Decision COP VI/23 on ―Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species of the CBD‖) 27 Although quantitative data are not available, there is broad consensus on the fact that regulating HOs (and therefore preventing the introduction and spread of pests) avoids the use of pesticides, which are largely consumed for the treatment of plant diseases (e.g. Fusarium foetens, Phytophthora infestans of potato). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 25
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: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 25 and 26: 7. Implementation of control and em
Page 49 and 50: Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 53 and 54: Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 57: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 63 and 64: Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?