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)
Consequently, the vast majority of MS CAs consider that the scope of the regime should
expand to include a more active prevention of natural spread; a weaker majority of
stakeholders are in favour of this approach.
General survey results
Q1.4. Expand scope to include a more active prevention of natural spread
23 out of 26 MS CAs and 15 out of 32 stakeholders consider that the scope of the CPHR should expand to
include a more active prevention of natural spread (1 MS CA and 7 stakeholders do not know)
The main argument for more explicitly including natural spread in the CPHR is that the
ultimate goal of the regime should be to try to eradicate any case of introduction of HO as
early and quickly as possible, whatever the cause of introduction (movement or natural
spread). Past experience in the agriculture and horticulture sectors has shown that the CPHR
has not been fully effective in some cases because it has generally excluded natural spread
from its provisions in relation to surveillance, management and financial assistance.
The evaluation of the Solidarity Regime, conducted by FCEC in 2007, indicated that ―the
Diabrotica example shows the limits of using the criteria „non-introduction of the harmful
organism by natural spread‟ ” and led to the conclusion that it would be preferable to include
cases of natural spread in the solidarity regime but to limit these to cases when
eradication/containment is “technically” possible and brings clear benefits to the plant health
status, the environment and/or the economy in the EU. These cases could concern natural
spread within a MS and from one MS to another, to prevent an outbreak in a given MS from
naturally spreading to a neighbouring MS, or to reduce the risk of such spread.
The above conclusions of the solidarity evaluation have generally been confirmed by MS CAs
during the survey and the field visits, with strong arguments for considering the inclusion of
natural spread on a case by case basis, i.e. where it is considered that effective management of
natural spread is technically, financially and administratively feasible. In their opinion, this
would imply that appropriate criteria and conditions are established to ensure that measures
are well targeted, proportionate, and could not lead to adverse or perverse incentives by
undermining the importance of assigning responsibility to the actions of the private operators
and authorities involved in the system. That would also require the clarification of the
definition of ‗natural‘, since, as has been indicated above, a range of interpretations are
possible, from spread through natural means (e.g. through natural phenomena) to manassisted
but unintended spread (e.g. through the movement of people or goods).
Technically, as discussed in the previous section, the distinction between natural spread and
spread by means of man-assisted movement, particularly when both factors are strongly
present (e.g. Diabrotica virgifera), is questionable due to their strong interaction.
Furthermore, technically speaking, the phenomenon of natural spread is inherent by definition
to any pest 50 . This makes the focus of current control measures (covered by solidarity
50
As quoted in ISPM 2, when conducting Stage 1 of a PRA, some intrinsic attributes that may indicate whether
an organism is a pest include: high rate of propagation; and, high mobility of propagules. Determination of an
organism as a pest requires that 'it should at least have been shown to be [... ...] transmissible or able to disperse'.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 46