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) 2.1. Current categorisation of HOs in Directive 2000/29/EC: a. Are there HOs which should be listed in the Directive (and are not currently listed)? Which ones? The majority of MS CAs (20 out of 25, 3 do not know) consider that there are certain HOs that should be listed in the Directive. Stakeholders mostly do not hold an opinion (11 out of 29 do not know), whereas 10 do not believe there are any HOs that should be listed in the Directive. b. Are there HOs which are currently listed in the Directive and should not be listed? Which ones? The majority of MS CAs (19 out of 25, 3 do not know) consider that there are certain HOs that should not be listed in the Directive. 11 stakeholders hold the same opinion, but the majority (18) do not know. e. Extent to which reliable information for appropriate risk assessment / risk management for listing is available*: e1. Presence and distribution of the currently listed HOs? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 e2. Presence and distribution of HOs recently considered for listing? e3. Scientific data for biological impact of the currently listed HOs? e4. Scientific data for biological impact of HOs recently considered for listing? Generally yes Sometimes Generally no Do not know e5. Scientific data for economic analysis of HOs of the currently … e6. Scientific data for economic analysis of HOs recently considered … Note: results based on responses of MS CAs f. Extent to which the approach for structuring of the Annexes I and II is appropriate for providing effective protection: 15 MS CAs (out of 25, 2 do not know) consider that the current structuring of Annexes I and II is appropriate for providing effective protection. The majority of stakeholders hold the same opinion, 14 out of 26, 6 do not know). 2.2 (stakeholders): Are you satisfied with the current prioritisation of HOs followed by the plant protection services in the implementation of the CPHR in your country? The majority of stakeholders are satisfied (12 out of 23, 5 do not know). Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 62
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) 2.3. Are there HOs which present an important phytosanitary risk and/or economic impact in your country but on which your plant protection services cannot sufficiently focus on at present? The majority of MS CAs (13 out of 25) do not sufficiently focus at present on HOs which present an important phytosanitary risk and/or economic impact. 11 stakeholders consider focus is not sufficient (out of 28, 7 do not know). The main reason (11 out of 35) is the insufficient staff (out of 35), and other reasons (10), for the majority financial resources. 2.4. Do the plant protection services in your country experience difficulties in effectively dealing with all the regulated HOs (many of which are non-European), in terms of: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 a. The expertise required for inspection? b. Staff resources required for inspection? c. The expertise required for diagnostics? Generally yes Sometimes Generally no d. Staff resources required for diagnostics? Note: results based on responses of MS CAs According to the results of the general survey, the majority of MS CAs consider that some revision to the lists of the base Directive is needed, on the basis that certain HOs that are listed should possibly be delisted, while there may be HOs not currently listed but which should possibly be listed (Q 2.1). MS have provided suggestions for HOs which should be included in the lists 80 ; indicating that without common approach at EU level, the current situation is that MS take action against nonlisted HOs on a national basis. In many cases it has been suggested that at least those which are currently regulated by emergency measures should be listed. Similarly, MS have provided suggestions for HOs that should be removed from the lists 81 , on the basis of different criteria and 80 HOs suggested for inclusion in lists are: Ambrosia artemisifolia, Chalarafraxinea, Cameraria ohridella, Dryocosmus kuriphilus, Eichhornia crassipes, Fusarium foetens, Gibberella (Fusarium) circinata, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ips subelongatus, PepMV, Phytophthora fragariae var. rubi, Phytophthora kernoviae, Phytophthora ramorum, PSTVd, Pueraria lobata, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Saperda candida, Sirex ermak, Tuta absoluta, Xanthomonas axonopodis pv dieffenbachiae. 81 Apple Proliferation phytoplasma, Cacoecimorpha pronubana, Cacyreus marshalli, Ciborinia camelliae, Cryphonectria parasitica, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae, Diabrotica virgifera, Diaporthe vaccinii, Dickeya (Erwinia) chrysanthemi, Ditylenchus destructor, Ditylenchus dipsaci, Erschoviella musculana, European Stone Fruit Phytoplasma, Globodera spp., Frankliniella occidentalis, Heliothis armigera, Impatiens necrotic spot virus, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Liriomyza trifolii, Pepino Mosaic Virus, Phialophora Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 63
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:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46: 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 85 and 86: Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 95: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 131 and 132: Source: FCEC based on general surve
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?