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) 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
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Q1.2.e Reasons explaining the increased incidence of natural spread Reasons MS CAs Stakeholders Increasing trade 23 out of 25 (2 do not know) 30 out of 32 (2 do not know) Climate change 18 out of 25 (3 do not know) 26 out of 33 (5 do not know) Increase in forestry pest incursions 15 out of 25 (9 do not know) 12 out of 29 (17 do not know) Changes in stakeholder interests 10 out of 25 (10 do not know) 6 out of 29 (15 do not know) Change in public perception 7 out of 25 (10 do not know) 4 out of 28 (14 do not know) Concern with biosecurity 6 out of 25 (14 do not know) 11 out of 28 (11 do not know) According to MS CAs, the increase in trade comes first in explaining the increased incidence of natural spread, followed by the increase in forestry pest incursions, and climate change: Figure 3-1: Main reasons explaining the increased incidence of natural spread Increasing trade Increase in forestry pest incursions Climate change Changes in stakeholder interests Concern with biosecurity Yes No Changes in public perception 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: Based on responses of MS CAs to Q1.2.e of the general survey Source: FCEC based on general survey results Global warming has the potential to alter the patterns and scale of natural spread in the EU. The effects of climate change are already seen in the way it is affecting cropping systems and natural vegetation such as forests and non-cultivated areas 46 . On the one hand, it can be anticipated that HOs already present in the EU will move further from the south to the north of the EU creating new issues in Nordic countries. Currently the pressure on agriculture and 46 There is a wealth of literature on the subject. For example: Impacts of Europe's changing climate - 2008 indicator-based assessment. European Environment Agency Report (EEA Report No 4/2008). The <strong>report</strong> presents past and projected climate change and impacts in Europe by means of about 40 indicators and identifies sectors and regions most vulnerable with a high need for adaptation, including agriculture and forestry. Also: Climate change impacts on forest health (Beverly Moore & Gillian Allard, Working Paper FBS/34E FAO, Rome, November 2008). Earlier literature includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 43
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:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26: 7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 49 and 50: Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 53 and 54: Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 63 and 64: Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 75: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
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?