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)
HOs which have a high potential of natural spread (i.e. spread by means other than manassisted
movement) are in practice sometimes impossible to eradicate and will sooner or
later become widely established. The higher the capacity of a pest to spread naturally
the less effective control measures will be (this also makes the case for early prevention
and reaction particularly important for such HOs);
Natural spread cannot be regulated as responsibility/liability may not be easy to
establish. Difficulties in defining ‗natural‘ spread, distinguishing natural spread from
spread by movement, and assigning responsibility make the inclusion of natural spread
in the provisions of the current Directive complex if not impossible;
on the other hand, it can be argued that the difficulties to judge on
responsibility/liability should be a reason to include natural spread, not the opposite.
There is also concern that inclusion might dilute the focus and efficacy of the current
measures on controls of movement.
With respect to the exclusion of natural spread in the solidarity regime, it should be noted that
there is a strong interaction between the natural spread and movement of plants which in
practice makes the distinction of causal effects on plant health difficult. This has implications
for assigning responsibility in the current regime. To date two elements are being used to
assess the non-responsibility of the MS for approving solidarity payments: the ―identification
of the source of contamination‖ and, when the source of contamination is not known, ―the
non-introduction of the HO by natural spread‖. Making a judgement on whether natural
spread has occurred or not is quite simple when the origin of contamination is well identified.
It is far more complicated when such origin is not known. For instance, the French and
Belgian Diabrotica solidarity dossiers in 2003 and 2004 were easily assessed as eligible
because they were clear cases of introduction through airports, whereas the Austrian
Diabrotica dossier introduced in 2003 was considered as non eligible because ―there was a
strong probability of natural dissemination because the findings are close to the border
between Austria and Slovakia, where the pest has already been found‖ 45 .
Evidence from the past decade, confirmed by the general survey results, suggests that the
incidence of natural spread is considered to be an increasing problem, particularly in the
context of climate change and expanding trade for any type of production areas and mainly
forestry and agriculture but also for the environment (Q1.2).
General survey results
Q1.2.a, b Extent to which natural spread is currently perceived as a problem, within and/or across MS
25 out of 26 MS CAs and 31 out of 34 stakeholders perceive natural spread to be a problem (at least partly) (0
MS CAs and 2 stakeholders do not know). Respectively 22 and 25 of them consider that it is a problem within
and across MS.
Q 1.2.c Extent to which natural spread is perceived as being more a problem than in the past
21 out of 26 MS CAs and 23 out of 34 stakeholders perceive natural spread as being more a problem than in the
past. (1 MS CA and 9 stakeholders do not know).
Q1.2.d Extent to which there is an increased incidence of natural spread
21 out of 26 MS CAs and 22 out of 34 stakeholders consider that there is an increased incidence of natural
spread (2 MS CAs and 8 stakeholders do not know)
45 EC Working Group ‗Solidarity‘ dossiers examination 22-23 April 2003
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 42