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 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