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)
According to the technical studies conducted in the framework of the EU Strategy on IAS 61 ,
several MS have developed or are in the process of developing a national action plan on IAS (by
late 2008, 13 out of 27 MS were engaged in this process), but there is a multitude of provisions
in place regarding national/sub-national regulation of IAS trade and movement of known high
risk species, as well as significant variation in the scope of the measures, funding (including on
research, scientific support and risk assessment capacity), administrative roles and
responsibilities, and the knowledge base on IAS (e.g. species inventories are largely national
and interoperability is limited) 62 . As a result, some MS are adopting measures, even with limited
scientific backing, while others are not, leading to significant incoherence in objectives (e.g.
several cases were noted where trade in known high-risk species was banned in one country/
region but not in neighbouring ones). The present evaluation has found that these shortcomings
continue to be a cause of concern both amongst MS NPPOs and amongst stakeholders.
This evaluation has also identified the need to motivate and involve the wider public in the
appreciation of the threats posed by IAS and effective management measures. This is a
significant task, as visibility of the issue remains low amongst the wider public, confirming the
findings of earlier studies 63 . Nonetheless, the results of a web-based public consultation carried
out by the Commission in May 2008 64 indicate that respondents are in favour of action at EU
level, and the regulation of trade is considered necessary in order to prevent new introductions of
IAS.
3.1.2.2 International approach to IAS
At a more international level, the EU/MS are signatories to a number of international agreements
touching on IAS, including the IPPC (to which reference is made under the WTO Agreement on
SPS), the WTO-SPS, and the CBD 65 .
Since 1997, revisions to the IPPC have included clarification on the scope with regards to IAS:
“the definition of pest was adopted with the understanding that the term injurious includes both
61 Shine et al. (2009)
62 The significant contribution made by EU research funding to improve the knowledge base is noted, including the
projects DAISIE and PRATIQUE.
63 E.g. a scoping study carried out for the EU Biodiversity Communication Campaign 2008-2010 found that only 2%
of general public respondents thought that IAS were an important threat to biodiversity (compared to high awareness
for other factors such as pollution (27%), manmade disasters (27%), climate change (19%), intensive agriculture
(13%) and land use/development (8%). Final report to the Commission, DG ENV Contract 07-
0307/2007/474126/MAR/A1, March 2008.
64 The consultation attracted 880 replies from 24 MS, overseas territories and international contributions. About a
quarter of the replies came from organisations and three quarters from individuals. A full report on the responses to
the questionnaire, detailing the replies received, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm.
65 The Convention on Biological Diversity is the most significant regulation in the field of nature protection. Article
8(h) and decision VI/23 of the CBD place obligations on member countries and provide guidance in the
management of IAS. The guiding principles suggest comprehensive national strategies on the basis of a three-stage
hierarchical approach (prevention, early detection, measures). The CBD has been transferred into several pieces of
legislation of the EU acquis, most notably Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild
fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EC) and the Birds
Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EC).
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 54