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)
Article 16(2) indicates that ―these measures must, inter alia, be such as to prevent risk of
the spread of the harmful organism concerned [...]‖. The evaluation has found that MS
interpret these articles differently, with some MS considering that they introduce the
concept of natural spread within the Directive. In their opinion, according to these articles,
any outbreak of a HO has to be eradicated and not only those that originate from the
movement of plants and plant products so that the eradication obligation also applies to
the case of a new outbreak based on natural spread.
The management of the PWN outbreak in Portugal and the recurrent approval of solidarity
funding for its eradication are de facto indicating that natural spread is integrated in the
legislation. Solidarity funding has been granted based on the appearance of new outbreaks
but most of the parties met during the evaluation for this case have acknowledged that
these new outbreaks were due to the natural spread of the pest from the original outbreak
areas. Additionally, the clear cut belt, i.e. the control measure taken for the containment of
PWN which was co-financed by the solidarity regime, specifically targeted natural spread.
Several elements may lead to the conclusion that natural spread is not included in the scope of
Directive 2000/29/EC (the base Directive), as follows:
Originally the base Directive was designed to address the trade and movement of plants
and plants products as indicated in Article 1(a) as follows: ―The Directive concerns
protective measures against the introduction into the MS [...]. It also concerns [...]
protective measures against the spread of harmful organisms within the Community by
means related to movements of plants, plant products and other related objects within a
Member State”. Trade was considered to be, and still is as is indicated in section 3.43.4,
the basic pathway of introduction of HOs in the EU.
According to the rules of the solidarity regime (Article 23 of the base Directive),
outbreaks of HOs that are based on natural spread are currently not considered to be
eligible for solidarity funding. The justification for the current exclusion of natural spread
lies in the basic principle of the solidarity regime, according to which a MS may receive
solidarity funding on the condition that it is not responsible for the appearance of the HO
on its territory. However, determining the responsibility or otherwise of a MS is a
complex process.
In the absence of an internationally recognised or commonly acknowledged definition, the
‗natural spread‘ concept could in fact have many interpretations. ―Spread‖ is being
defined by the IPPC as ―Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an
area 44 ‖, but ―natural spread‖ is not defined, as the IPPC does not refer to the natural
spread concept in its Convention. In practice, a range of interpretations are possible, from
spread through natural means (e.g. through natural phenomena) to man-assisted but
unintended spread (e.g. through the movement of people or goods).
The main arguments formulated by survey respondents and interviewees against the inclusion
of natural spread are as follows:
44 ISPM No. 5: Glossary of phytosanitary terms.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 41