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) forestry from insect pests and insect-borne diseases is less important at higher latitudes, owing to the less favourable conditions. On the other hand, new pests are expected to be introduced via natural spread from the North of Africa and Middle East as the modified climate is becoming favourable to this spread 47 . Additionally, under changing climatic conditions, some organisms may reach a higher population level and possibly start to naturally spread as climatic conditions become more favourable. These effects are increasingly evident around the world, with weather patterns becoming an excellent predictive model for pest patterns, especially in cases of extreme climatic events, e.g. strong co-relation between the El Nino cycle and pest numbers are evident in newly emerging studies 48 . Therefore along with modifications of trade patterns (new supply chains, multiplication of origins of plants and plant products, more exotic species, etc.), which are considered to be the main pathway for the introduction of HOs and invasive species, global warming plays a complementary role being the other important ―driver of change‖ affecting both the incidence and severity of plant diseases 49 . In terms of the sectors most affected by natural spread, both MS CAs and stakeholders (respondents) to the general survey consider that the damages caused by natural spread of regulated HOs are more important in forestry followed closely by agriculture, public and private garden and horticulture. Aquaculture seems not to be as highly affected by this problem (or perhaps awareness is lower), although certain interviewees and some literature point to certain impacts of natural spread in relation to IAS aquatic plants. General survey results Q1.2.f Importance of the damage caused by natural spread of regulated HOs in the following sectors: Areas MS-CA Stakeholders Forestry Out of 25: 16 ‗high‘ and 4 ‗medium‘ Out of 30: 9 ‗high‘ and 5 ‗medium‘ answers (2 do not know) answers (14 do not know) Agriculture Out of 25: 15 ‗high‘ and 6 ‗medium‘ answers (1 do not know) Out of 29: 5 ‗high‘ and 10 ‗medium‘ answers (12 do not know) 47 A number of presentations on this were made at the Conference organised under the CPHR evaluation: Modernising the plant health regime in view of globalisation and climate change (23/24 February 2010, Brussels). For example: Plant health threats to agriculture from globalisation and climate change (Mike Jeger and Marco Pautasso, Imperial College London); Forestry health threats from globalisation and climate change (Gillian Allard, Forestry Officer (Protection and Health) Forest Assessment, Management and Conservation Division, Forest Management Team Forestry Department, FAO). 48 World Bank/World Trade Organisation Workshop: Climate Change and Agricultural Trade: Risks and Responses, Washington, 22-23 September 2009. This workshop was financed by the Standards and Trade Development Facility of the WTO and was aimed primarily at identifying the risks and threats to trade and development arising from climate change. Conference participants concluded that climate change is a reality and the scientific evidence is now judged to be conclusive by the multilateral agencies, and there is commitment to review and adapt their policies accordingly to both promote mitigating actions and help confine the rise in global temperatures to tolerable levels. 49 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the WHITE PAPER: Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action Human, Animal and Plant Health Impacts of Climate Change {COM(2009) 147 <strong>final</strong>} Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 44
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Areas MS-CA Stakeholders Public and private gardens Out of 25: 12 ‗high‘ and 7 ‗medium‘ Out of 29: 5 ‗high‘ and 3 ‗medium‘ answers (1 do not know) answers (18 do not know) Horticulture Biodiversity and natural environment Wider economy Environmental resources (soil, air, water) Aquaculture Out of 25: 11 ‗high‘ and 7 ‗medium‘ answers (1 do not know) Out of 25: 7 ‗high‘ and 8 ‗medium‘ answers (6 do not know) Out of 25: 4 ‗high‘ and 9 ‗medium‘ answers (6 do not know) Out of 25: 3 ‗high‘ and 6 ‗medium‘ answers (11 do not know) Out of 25: 0 ‗high‘ and 2 ‗medium‘ answers (18 do not know) Note: answers were given in terms of low-medium-high Out of 31: 7 ‗high‘ and 8 ‗medium‘ answers (11 do not know) Out of 29: 5 ‗high‘ and 4 ‗medium‘ answers (17 do not know) Out of 29: 2 ‗high‘ and 7 ‗medium‘ answers (16 do not know) Out of 28: 4 ‗high‘ and 1 ‗medium‘ answers (19 do not know) Out of 29: 5 ‗high‘ and 1 ‗medium‘ answers (23 do not know) MS CA and stakeholder response to these questions may be explained by the fact that major plant health issues in the last ten years have been Diabrotica virgifera on maize, PWN on pine trees and Erwinia amylovora on fruit plants and ornamentals, which all have a significant capacity to spread naturally. A minority of MS CAs and stakeholders have indicated that the damage caused to biodiversity and the natural environment is high. Figure 3-2: Importance of the damage caused by natural spread of regulated HOs in different sectors Note: Based on responses of MS CAs to Q1.2.f of the general survey Source: FCEC based on general survey results Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 45
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 77: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?